Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

NEW WRIT.

For the Borough of Stoke-on-Trent (Hanley Division), in the room of Samuel Clowes, esquire, deceased.—[Mr. Thomas Kennedy.)

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

London, Midland and Scottish Railway Bill,

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Edinburgh Corporation Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Thursday, 19th April, at Half-past Seven of the Clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

EYE DISEASES.

Sir ROBERT THOMAS: 9.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any inquiry has been held into the fact that out of a total, in 1926, of 1,726 invalided from the Navy for all causes of injuries and disease, as many as 386 were on account of diseases of the eye?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): An analysis of the 386 cases of men who were invalided in 1926 under the heading "Diseases of the Eyes" shows that of this number 345 were due to congenital deformities of the eye, namely long sight, short sight, and astigmatism, which brought the individual concerned below the visual standard required in the rating held by him.
Five men were invalided for defective colour vision. Of the remaining 36 cases, three were due to injury, three to cataract, three to iritis, and the others to chronic inflammatory or degenerative conditions (ulcer, keratitis, retinitis, etc., etc.). In view of the facts disclosed by this analysis I do not think that a special inquiry would serve any useful purpose. The hon. Member will appreciate that the detection of latent errors of vision is not easy and that it is in consequence of the more frequent and rigorous examinations which are now held after a man has joined the Service that these defects come to light.

IMPERIAL DEFENCE (NEW ZEALAND'S CONTRIBUTION).

Mr. A. M. WILLIAMS: 11.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Government of New Zealand has offered to make any additional contribution to Imperial Defence and, if so, of what nature?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Bridgeman): In 1924 the New Zealand Government undertook the entire maintenance of the oil-burning cruiser "Dunedin" in place of the coal-burning cruiser "Chatham," which they had been maintaining since 1920. In 1925 the New Zealand Government further undertook the entire maintenance of a second oil-burning cruiser, the "Diomede." Quite recently, as stated in my speech introducing the Navy Estimates, New Zealand has made the generous contribution of £1,000,000, to be paid in eight instalments, towards the construction of the dock at Singapore. I was wrong in saying that New Zealand was to maintain an additional cruiser. It is anticipated that when the existing cruisers are eventually withdrawn they will be replaced by two B Class cruisers to be wholly maintained by New Zealand.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: Is there still a British cruiser in addition to the New Zealand cruiser at the Island of Samoa?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I would rather have notice of that question. I do not think so.

CAPITAL SHIPS (BOMB-DROPPING EXPERIMENTS).

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: 8.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty
what capital ships, if any, of His Majesty's Navy are still due to be scrapped under the terms of the Washington Convention; and, if there are any such, will he consider using them as targets for bomb-dropping experiments from aeroplanes?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: No capital ships of His Majesty's Navy are due to be scrapped until 1934. When the time comes I have no doubt that consideration will be given to the hon. and gallant Member's suggestion.

Lieut.- Commander KENWORTHY: What is happening to the four "Iron Duke" class which were to have been scrapped when the "Nelson" and "Rodney" were completed? Have they already been scrapped?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I should prefer to give an accurate reply. May I send the hon. and gallant Gentleman a reply in writing?

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Certainly. If these four ships which were due to be broken up have not been broken up, would the right hon. Gentleman consider their use for the purpose of these very important experiments?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: We are only allowed, under the Washington Convention, one mobile target ship of that size, and we have one already.

ESTIMATES (MECHANICAL TRAINING ESTABLISHMENTS).

Mr. ROBERT YOUNG: 12.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether the mechanical training establishment at Chatham it is proposed to utilise for training of artificer apprentices, Vote 10, page 196, is one and the same as the mechanical training establishment named in Vote 1, page 30, and Vote 5, page 87; if so, whether another venue is to be found for the latter; and whether in future the details as to staff, salaries, wages and contingencies of the mechanical training establishment can be set out in Vote 5 in a similar way to that for colleges and schools?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The training of artificer apprentices for the Royal Navy, hitherto concentrated in His Majesty's Ship "Fisgard," Portsmouth, is in process of transfer to Chatham, and
the reference under Vote 10, page 196, of the Navy Estimates, 1928, is to the adaptation for this purpose of buildings at the mechanical training establishment, Chatham, previously used for the training of candidates for the rank of mechanician, which service has been transferred to Devonport. The transfer of apprentices from "Fisgard" has already been effected so far as the accommodation is available, and the provision in Vote 1, Subhead H., page 30, is for the civilian technical and other staff required for the transferred apprentices. The corresponding staff for the boys not yet transferred is shown on the same page under the item "His Majesty's Ship 'Fisgard' Training Establishment for Artificer Apprentices." These establishments, being Fleet technical training establishments as distinct from educational establishments, are borne on the Vote for the Fleet, Vote 1, and not on the Educational Vote, Vote 5, with the exception of the civilian schoolmaster and evening teachers employed on educational duties. The hon. Member will find explanations to this effect on pages 17 and 65 of the Estimates.

WARRANT OFFICERS (PAY).

Mr. YOUNG: 13.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether the difference in pay betwixt 948 warrant officers in 1927 and 981 warrant officers in 1928 is due to the cost-of-living figures; and, if not, what is the explanation of the reduction in aggregate pay for more men?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The difference is not due to the cost-of-living figures. The explanation is that the 1927 numbers shown in the Estimates are those expected to be borne on 31st March, 1928, but the average number throughout the year for whom pay had to be provided was considerably larger. There has been no material difference in the average rate of pay of the officers concerned.

MESS TRAPS.

Mr. YOUNG: 14.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he will explain the term mess traps, as applied in victualling and clothing for the Navy; and whether the increase in the amount of money needed for mess traps is due to or brought about by the new general messing arrangements foreshadowed in Fleet orders?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The term "Mess Traps" includes china, glass, cutlery, and other table ware, cooking and kitchen utensils, etc., required in connection with the messing of officers and men. The increase in the amount needed for 1928 is not attributable to the general messing arrangements, but to a decrease in the surplus stocks available for reduction of purchases during the year.

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.

Sir R. THOMAS: 26.
asked the Minister of Health what is the yearly rate of contribution per head among persons insured under the National Health Insurance Act towards the cost of mileage and drugs in England and in Wales, respectively?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): There is no provision for a specific contribution per head among insured persons towards the cost of mileage and drugs. The National Health Insurance Act, 1926, provides for an inclusive sum, not exceeding 13s. a year per insured person, to be applied for the purpose of meeting the cost of medical benefit, the administration expenses of insurance committees, and any expenses incurred by the Minister in connection with the administration of benefits. The amount available out of the 13s. for meeting the cost of mileage and drugs together is 3s. 3d. per insured person in each country. As, however, the total expenditure on mileage and drugs in Wales exceeds the amount available, the Act authorises payment out of the National Health Insurance Fund (England) to the Welsh National Health Insurance Fund for the purpose of meeting the excess expenditure.

Sir R. THOMAS: 27.
asked the Minister of Health whether there exist distribution committees for the purpose of dividing between England and Wales the sums available to defray the cost of medical benefit and of drugs; and whether the Association of Welsh Insurance Committees nominates one person to represent it on each of such committees?

Sir K. WOOD: There are Medical and Pharmaceutical Distribution Committees
charged with the apportionment among Insurance Committees of the sums available to defray the cost of medical treatment and drugs in England and Wales. There are Welsh representatives on both committees, but it has never been considered necessary that the Association of Welsh Insurance Committees should be represented as such on either committee.

Sir R. THOMAS: Why is it not considered necessary?

Sir K. WOOD: There are Welsh representatives on the committee in another capacity.

Sir R. THOMAS: In what capacity?

Sir K. WOOD: Representing Wales.

EAST INDIA RAILWAY (STRIKE AND RIOT).

Mr. SAKLATVALA: 37.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India if he is aware of the industrial dispute on the East India Railway at Liluah; that the European railway staff was armed against the Indian railway workers who are on strike; and that the European staff, assisted by the local police, took part in firing upon a party of strikers who were on picket duty at Bagamachi; and how many persons have been killed and how many wounded by this firing?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): It has been found necessary to close the Lilloah workshops on the East India Railway since 7th March owing to the men's refusal to work. Certain other men employed on the East India Railway in the vicinity of Howrah also stopped work largely owing to intimidation, but these are beginning to return. On 28th March a riot broke out at Bamangachi near Howrah in connection with the strike. The rioters, who are believed to have been mostly strikers from the workshops, attempted to rush into the locomotive yard in order, apparently, to force the workmen there to join in the strike. The police were heavily stoned by the rioters, several being severely injured, including two superintendents (one of whom had his ribs broken), and after repeated warnings a rifleman of the East Frontier Rifles, a special police force, was ordered to fire one shot, which was followed by four other shots at intervals of about one
minute each. The crowd then desisted from the attack. One man was killed and four were injured, one of whom died in hospital later. An inquiry was immediately commenced by the district magistrate at Howrah.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: I am not quite clear with regard to the answer to my question as to whether the European officials of the railway company, in view of any military duties they have, might have taken part in the firing?

Earl WINTERTON: I do not think they did. I understand that, there were certain officials of the railway company who were sworn in as special constables. There seems to be no question that the firing was necessitated by the fact that the police were in actual danger of their lives. I respectfully ask the hon. Member not to ask any further questions until the result of the magisterial inquiry is known.

OVERSEAS TRADE DEPARTMENT (MESSENGERS).

Mr. FENBY: 39.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether four vacancies for established messengers in the Department of Overseas Trade will be filled by ex-service unestablished messengers at present serving in that Department?

Mr. DOUGLAS HACKING (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): The question of providing a complement of established messengers in the Department of Overseas Trade is under consideration at the present time, but no decision has been reached as regards the officers who shall be appointed to these posts.

ARMS TRAFFIC CONVENTION.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether, seeing that in 1925 representatives of His Majesty's Government signed a convention for the supervision of the international trade in arms and ammunition and in implements of war, he will state whether this Convention has been ratified by His Majesty's Government; and, if not, whether he will state the reason?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Austen Chamberlain): I have been asked to reply. The Arms Traffic Convention has not yet been ratified by His Majesty's Government for the reason explained in my reply to the hon. Members for Anglesey (Sir R. Thomas) and Dewsbury (Mr. Riley) on the 28th of March.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is there any chance of ratifying the Convention?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: We shall be glad to ratify when we can get other Powers to do so simultaneously with us.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUBBER EXPORT RESTRICTION SCHEME.

PRIME MINISTER'S STATEMENT.

Sir MERVYN MANNINGHAMBULLER: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to give the House any information as to the result of the inquiry into the rubber industry?

Mr. BROCKLEBANK: 48.
asked the Prime Minister if he is now in a position to make any statement upon the rubber inquiry?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I thank the House for allowing me to make this statement early in Questions. The Government have received the Report of the Committee of Civil Research on the question of rubber restriction, and they have decided that all restrictions on the export of rubber from British Malaya and Ceylon will be removed on the 1st November, 1928, the existing scheme being continued unaltered in the meantime.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: May I ask why there are restrictions on rubber? I want to ask you, Mr. Speaker, why this question, which I hope is in proper form, is not replied to, and no attention is paid to it?

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think it arises here.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: The Prime Minister distinctly stated that the restrictions had been removed——

HON. MEMBERS: Will be removed!

Mr. KIRKWOOD: My question was arising from that reply. I want to ask: Why should there be any restriction?

The PRIME MINISTER: I think I could reassure the hon. Member, but it would take quite a quarter of an hour to explain, and undoubtedly there will be a Debate on the subject, when full information will be given.

Sir FRANK NELSON: Does the removal of the rubber export restriction require the sanction of this House?

The PRIME MINISTER: I should like notice of that question, but I think it can be done by order of the Colonial Office.

Sir F. NELSON: May I ask, alternatively, whether, before the restriction is actually removed, there will be any chance of debating it and all the circumstances leading up to it?

Mr. MACLEAN: If this House has no right either to remove or impose restrictions, what is the use of having a Debate on the matter?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter to-morrow.

AFFORESTATION.

Mr. WELLOCK: 47.
asked the Prime Minister if he is in a position to say when the Government proposes to introduce an Afforestation Bill, in view of the fact that the present Act expires in March, 1929?

The PRIME MINISTER: It is not intended to introduce a new Forestry Bill. The Act of 1919 continues in force after March, 1929, with the exception of Subsection (2) of Section 8, which fixed the total of the grants to the Forestry Fund over the first 10 years. The details with regard to the second 10 years are still under consideration, but it is intended to ask Parliament to vote annually into the Forestry Fund such sums as may be required under an agreed programme for the next 10 years. No legislation will be necessary to give effect to these arrangements.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Can the Prime Minister say whether time is likely to be given for a Debate on afforestation before the programme for the next 10 years is definitely settled?

The PRIME MINISTER: I should like notice of that question nearer the time.

Mr. WELLOCK: With regard to the first year, will the Prime Minister consider the possibility of finding employment in afforestation for a considerable number of miners?

The PRIME MINISTER: indicated assent.

STEAMSHIP "ISLE OF JUNE."

Mr. DAY: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is in a position to give full particulars of the incident which occurred on 5th March in which the United States coastguard destroyer "Cassin" fired several shots at the British steamer "Isle of June" off the Florida coast?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The only definite information that I have yet received on this case is that Captain Wheeler, of the s.s. "Isle of June," has been committed for trial on the charges of obstructing and restraining a United States officer in the execution of his duty, and of brandishing a firearm on the arrival of his vessel at her destination at Miami, Florida. Captain Wheeler is understood to have been released on bail. His Majesty's Ambassador at Washington has, however, requested the United States Government to furnish him with full particulars of this incident, and to explain why the "Isle of June" has been refused clearance from Miami.

Mr. DAY: May I ask whether those particulars have been furnished yet, and whether the right hon. Gentleman has them?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir; the opening words of my answer were that this was all the information that I had at present.

Mr. DAY: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA.

BRITISH CONCESSION, CHINGKIANG.

Mr. DAY: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any Chinese soldiers have occupied houses in the British concession in Chingkiang; if
so, whether a protest has been lodged with the Chinese authorities and can he give particulars?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I gave the latest information in my possession in my reply to my hon. Friend, the Member for South-East Essex (Mr. Looker) on Monday last.

NANKING OUTRAGES.

Mr. MARDY JONES: 5.
asked the Secretary of State far Foreign Affairs if he has any statement to make about the negotiations with the Nationalist Government of China for the settlement of the claims arising out of the incidents at Nanking on 24th March, 1927, having broken down; and whether any other Governments besides His Majesty's Government have taken part in the negotiations?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No satisfactory settlement of the Nanking incident was reached during the recent negotiations, and Sir M. Lampson, being unable to remain any longer in Shanghai, sailed for Peking on the 25th March, leaving the negotiations to be continued by His Majesty's Consul-General at Shanghai and His Majesty's Consul-General for Nanking as opportunity offered. No other Government took part in the negotiations, but parallel negotiations have been in progress with the representatives of America and Japan and in the former case have resulted in an agreement.

PERSIA (CAPITULATORY RIGHTS).

Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONE: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any negotiations are in progress with Persia as regards the capitulatory régime; whether other countries besides Russia and Turkey have renounced their capitulatory privileges; and which countries still exercise such rights?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The position of foreign nationals in Persia after the termination of the so-called capitulatory régime is naturally the subject of discussion between the Persian Government and the other Governments concerned. The countries still entitled to exercise capitulatory rights are, I believe, the Argentine Republic, Belgium, Brazil, Chile, Denmark, France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Mexico, the Netherlands,
Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United States and Uruguay. So far as I am aware, no countries other than Russia and Turkey have hitherto renounced their rights.

ABYSSINIA (ARMS IMPORTATION).

Mr. MACLEAN: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British Government has signed any Convention regarding the supply of arms to Abyssinia; and if he is satisfied that the terms of the Convention have been carried out?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: His Majesty's Government have subscribed to the Brussels Act of 1890, of which Articles 8 to 14 are specially relevant to the subject-matter of this question. They have signed, with France and Italy, the tripartite Agreement of 1906 respecting the importation of arms and munitions into Abyssinia, and the Convention of Saint Germain of 1919. The last-named never attained full force, but in 1920 Belgium, France, Great Britain, Italy and Japan agreed among themselves that the protocol attached to the Convention should be regarded by them as applying only to those provisions of the Convention which concerned the prohibited areas specified in Article 6. Abyssinia being one of the prohibited areas, in the view of His Majesty's Government that Convention and Protocol have since been applicable to that country. This was, in effect, recognised by Abyssinia herself on her admission to the League of Nations in 1923, when she undertook to act in conformity with the principles enunciated in the Saint Germain Convention, and, in particular, with the provisions of Article 6 of that Convention.
While they have on their part discharged all the obligations incumbent on them, His Majesty's Government are not satisfied that the terms of the Convention of 1919 have been carried out by all the other parties. They have, therefore, suggested to the Governments of Abyssinia, France and Italy that, as the present régime has not worked smoothly, it might be advantageous to all four to anticipate the general coming into force of the Geneva Convention of 1925, and to apply its provisions to Abyssinia, subject to the concurrence of the other signatories and of the League of Nations. The
Governments of France and Italy have agreed to be represented at a joint Conference of the four Powers to consider whether and how this object can be attained; the Abyssinian Government have not yet given a final reply, but they still have the matter under consideration.

Mr. MACLEAN: If the Government are not satisfied that the terms of the Convention have been carried out by all countries, can the right hon. Gentleman state whether armaments are being supplied, and from which country, and, if so, whether they are being supplied under Government permits—not necessarily of this Government, but the Governments of other countries?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I could not enter into details of that kind without notice, and, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I would much sooner not enter into those details. We proposed a Conference, and I think that that would be a bad preparation for the Conference.

Mr MACLEAN: While it may be quite good to enter into a Conference, is it, not the case that at present arms are being supplied to that country, to the knowledge of our Government, and why has no action been taken?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: We have taken the action of asking the four Powers to join in a Conference, to see how this matter can be dealt with. Two Powers have accepted, and we are still awaiting the reply of Abyssinia.

Mr. MACLEAN: Surely, if some Powers are breaking the Convention, action can be taken against those who have been breaking it?

ANGLO-EGYPTIAN RELATIONS.

Mr. THURTLE: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has any statement to make regarding negotiations with the Egyptian Government?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No negotiations are in progress, but Lord Lloyd has been instructed to deliver a reply to the Note recently presented to him by the Egyptian Prime Minister, and I hope that the text of the two Notes will be published to-morrow.

Mr. THURTLE: Will the Foreign Secretary bear in mind, in connection with these negotiations with Egypt, the undesirability of giving the outside world an impression of a strong Power bullying a weak one?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: There are no negotiations in progress with Egypt. The negotiations were closed when Sarwat Pasha and I agreed upon the text of a Treaty, which the Egyptian Government have subsequently rejected. The text of that Treaty, offered freely by His Majesty's Government, is sufficient to guard against any suggestion of the kind that the hon. Member mentions.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: Do we, then, take it that the negotiations have now closed, and that what is going on as an exchange of Notes is not anything else but an exchange of hostile ultimatums from either side?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is giving his opinion.

FILMS (PRODUOTION AND ASSISTANCE).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 10.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that, on 24th March, attempts were made to blow up a schooner at sea for the purpose of making a so-called war film, but that the ship failed to sink and was adrift in the English Channel for some hours, thus forming a danger to navigation; that the destroyer "Salmon" was despatched from Portland to sink her, which she did by firing 10 lyddite shells into the hull; and whether the film company will pay for the cost of the oil fuel and ammunition expended by His Majesty's Ship "Salmon"?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am aware of the facts stated in the question. Although the vessel was drifting after the first attempt was made to blow her up, she was on fire at the time and, as she was sunk before dark, it is not considered that she was a danger to navigation during this interval. The answer to the last part of the question is in the affirmative.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: If there is no danger to navigation, why was it that one of His Majesty's ships went to sea to sink her?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: In case she did not sink.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me the amount of money that will be due from the company for the services of this ship?

AVIATION.(JURISPRUDENCE).

Mr. MALONE: 25.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether the Air Ministry will be represented at the international congress on jurisprudence in regard to aviation, which is being held at Madrid on 28th May?

The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Samuel Hoare): The answer is in the negative.

Aliens Order, 1920, Article 1 (3) (b).


The following permits were issued in accordance with Article 1 (3) (b) of the Aliens Order, 1920, during the past three years and the first two months of 1928 to enable employers in this country to obtain the services from abroad of alien waiters


—
1925.
1926.
1927.
1928. (two months).


Head waiters and others admitted for special occasions.
11
9
12
12


Waiters under exchange arrangements
85
81
78
30


Total
96
90
90
42

With regard to the second part of the Question, the following associations are consulted from time to time:—

The Hotels and Restaurants Association,

The Catering Trades Unemployment Association.

The Société Culinaire Francaise de Sécours Mutuel.

The Workers' Union.

The Union Helvetia.

SILK INDUSTRY.

Mr. KELLY: 17.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of men and women employed in the silk industry; what are the hours agreed upon as the normal working week: and what are the rates of wages operating for men and women in the silk trade?

Mr. BETTERTON: At January, 1928, there were 20,390 men and 26,360 women in Great Britain aged 16 to 64 years classified as belonging to the silk industry (including artificial silk). Of these, 1,301 men and 2,120 women were recorded as unemployed at 20th February.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

CATERING TRADE (FOREIGN WAITERS).

Mr. KELLY: 15.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of permits given for waiters from other countries to take up work in this country; and the bodies or individuals who were consulted as to the state of employment existing in the catering trade?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): As the answer involves a number of figures, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The joint industrial council for the silk industry (which does not cover artificial silk) agreed in 1919 upon a normal working week of 48 hours, the fixing of wages being left to district arrangements. In the Leek and Macclesfield districts the agreed rates of wages of adult workers for a week of 48 hours are as shown in the statement which I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I have no record of any other current wages agreements in the silk industry, and no information as to the earnings of piece-workers, who form a large proportion of the whole.

Mr. KELLY: Do the wages furnished by the hon. Gentleman show anything above 30s. a week?

Mr. BETTERTON: Yes, Sir.

Following is the statement referred to:

Time Rates of Wages of Adult Workers in the Silk Industry at 1st March, 1928, as agreed upon by the Employers' Associations and Trade Unions concerned.

I. Leek.


Class of Worker
Weekly Rates of Wages.



s.
d.


Men (22 years of age and over unless otherwise stated):


Pickers
45
0


Braidworkers, spindle fettlers, oilers, cleaners, spinners, throwers and reelers:




21 years of ago
42
0


21½ years of age
44
6


22 years of age
47
0


Braid speeders and knitting tacklers (fully qualified)
53
0


Weavers
51
0


Mechanics
72
0


Dyers and glossers:




21 years of age
44
0


21½ years of age
47
0


22 years of age
49
0


22½ years of age
51
0


Dyers and glossers with no previous experience in the dyeing trade:




1st month
37
6


2nd month
38
6


3rd month
39
6


4th month
41
6


5th month
43
6


6th month
45
6


7th month
47
6


8th month
48
6


9th month
49
6


10th month
51
0


Dyers' mixers:




1st year
51
0


2nd year
52
0


3rd year
53
0


4th year
59
0


Dyeing machinemen:




1 man to 1 machine
51
6


2 men to 3 machines
52
6


1 man to 2 machines
53
6


Women (18 years of age and over)
25
6*


* The majority of female workers are piece-workers. It is agreed that piece rates shall be such as to yield to an average worker at least 20 per cent. above the time rate.

ENGINEERING TRADE.

Mr. KELLY: 16.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of men and women registered as unemployed from the engineering trade in December, 1924, 1925, 1926, and 1927?

Mr. BETTERTON: As the reply includes a number of figures I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:


NUMBERS of INSURED MEN and WOMEN respectively classified as belonging to the Engineering Industry in Great Britain recorded as unemployed in December of each of the years 1924 to 1927.


Date.
Engineering, Engineers Iron and Steel Founding.
Electrical Engineering.
Marine Engineering, etc.
Constructional Engineering.
Construction and Repair of Motor Vehicles Cycles, and Aircraft.
Total.


22nd December, 1924.


Men
81,224
2,797
10,049
3,178
13,562
110,810


Women
2,070
668
27
46
1,209
4,020


21st December, 1925.


Men
68,953
3,209
13,772
2,913
13,059
101,906


Women
1,370
542
81
36
1,073
3,102


20th December, 1926.


Men
91,521
3,669
13,893
6,465
16,954
132,502


Women
1,992
844
38
57
1,388
4,319


19th December, 1927.


Men
53,429
2,715
5,600
2,263
14,456
78,463


Women
1,286
464
17
27
993
2,787

YOUNG MARRIED WOMEN (BENEFIT).

Mr. WALTER BAKER: 18.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction with the Regulations governing the payment of unemployment benefit to young married women; whether he is aware that many young women give up work in industry on marriage only to find that the family income is insufficient to support them; and whether he will take the necessary steps to see that benefit is payable to all persons who are genuinely unemployed and seeking work or see that all contributions are refunded to women who leave industry on marriage?

Mr. BETTERTON: Young married women are eligible for unemployment benefit on the same conditions as all other insured contributors, and the question whethey they satisfy conditions is decided by the same machinery. With regard to the last part of the question, I have no statutory authority to refund contributions to women on marriage. The recommendations of the Blanesburgh Committee were against any change in the law on this point.

Mr. BAKER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a number of women in Bristol are being refused unemployment benefit although they are genuinely seeking work, and will he cause special inquiry to be made to see that the conditions are satisfied on both sides?

Mr. BETTERTON: I will certainly look into any cases the hon. Member brings to my notice, but, as I pointed out, there is no special Regulation dealing with young married women. The question in this case, as in others, is whether they fulfil the statutory condition that they are genuinely seeking work.

Mr. BAKER: Is it not absolutely certain that a young married woman seeking employment after marriage has to obtain work before she can secure unemployment pay?

Mr. BETTERTON: No, I cannot accept a generalisation of that kind.

Mr. MARDY JONES: Is it not a, fact that a considerable number of young married women have had to resort to employment to maintain the home owing to the low wages of the husband? Has the hon. Gentleman no data in his Department dealing with this, and, if he has not, will he get them?

Mr. BETTERTON: No, nor would it be possible to obtain them.

DISTRESSED AREAS (TRANSFER OF WORKERS).

Mr. DENNISON: 20.
asked the Minister of Labour if the Industrial Transference Board will inquire into the conditions prevailing in areas other than mining, particularly the iron and steel districts, where unemployment and underemployment is acute?

Mr. BETTERTON: My right hon. Friend understands that the Industrial Transference Board are including in their consideration the districts where iron and steel are the chief industries.

MINERS (AFFORESTATION).

Mr. WELLOCK: 21.
asked the Minister of Labour whether any and, if so, how many unemployed miners have been found employment on afforestation schemes; and whether the possibility of finding work for unemployed miners on such schemes has been considered by his Department?

Mr. BETTERTON: I am unable to say how many ex-miners are at present employed by the Forestry Commission, but I can assure the hon. Member that the suggestion in the second part of his question has not been overlooked.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the large amount of land suitable for afforestation in the county of Durham, and will he consult with the Government to increase their efforts in this direction so as to give employment to miners who are unemployed in the county?

Mr. WELLOCK: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is a very profitable industry, and that there is a good opportunity for engaging miners, and will he make representations to the Government?

Mr. BETTERTON: This aspect of the unemployment problem is not overlooked, but I should be holding out false hopes if I said that I thought any considerable number of men could be employed in afforestation.

Mr. MARDY JONES: Will the Department take into consideration the fact that a thousand at least of these miners have come from rural districts and have worked on the land, and to some extent at afforestation work?

BENEFIT DISALLOWED.

Mr. MACLEAN: 23.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that W. J. Creelman, 112, Harmony Row, Govan, has been refused unemployment benefit on the ground that he is not genuinely seeking work; that this man's record shows that he was employed in 1917 to 1921, unemployed a few weeks, again employed from 1921 to 13th March, 1926,
unemployed to 17th May, 1926, employed to 15th June, 1926, unemployed to December, 1926, and employed from December, 1926, to December, 1927; and that he received six weeks' unemployment benefit on a, claim lodged on 7th December, 1927, and then disallowed as not genuinely seeking work; and whether, in view of this record, he will take steps to have further inquiries made with a view to having the decision withdrawn and payment of benefit made?

Mr. BETTERTON: I am having inquiry made in this case, and will let the hon. Member know the result in due course.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 24.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that Harold Brooks, of Lincoln Gardens, Goldthorpe, applied for unemployment benefit to the Mexborough Employment Exchange on 15th February, 1928, and his claim was rejected on the grounds that he had not sufficient stamps on his card; and that he met with an accident on 9th October, 1925, and was unable to follow his employment until the date on which he applied for unemployment benefit; and whether this decision will apply to all insured persons who are incapacitated for long periods?

Mr. BETTERTON: I am having inquiry made in this case. I will let the hon. Member know the result in due course.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Will the hon. Gentleman reply to the latter part of the question, which affects probably thousands of workers who may meet with accidents which necessitate a prolonged holiday?

Mr. BETTERTON: I cannot reply to the latter part of the question until I know the exact circumstances of the case.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

TELEGRAMS.

The following Question stood on the Order Paper in the name of Mr. MACLEAN:

29. To ask the Postmaster-General the income from telegrams during the period 1st November, 1925, to 31st October, 1926, and during the period 1st November, 1926, to 31st October, 1927, respectively?

Mr. MACLEAN: There is an omission from the Question. I intended it to refer to the Glasgow post office only.

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir William Mitchell-Thomson): Perhaps the hon. Member will put it down as an unstarred Question for to-morrow.

TELEPHONE SERVICE (HUDDERSFIELD- LIVERPOOL).

Mr. JAMES HUDSON: 30.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he has received complaints from Huddersfield firms at the alteration from the no-delay telephone service, which for nearly four years has existed in a direct line between Huddersfield and Liverpool, to the present system, which compels Huddersfield callers to use the delay service to Liverpool by way of Leeds; and whether, as it is of importance that Huddersfield should be in contact with Manchester and Liverpool cotton markets and shippers without having to suffer the present average delay of 20 minutes on telephone calls to Liverpool, he will consider an immediate return to the system which the Post Office permitted in Huddersfield till the autumn of 1927?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I have received letters from firms in Huddersfield on this subject. I regret that it is no longer possible to continue the exceptional service under which Huddersfield telephone subscribers could communicate with Liverpool subscribers without any period of waiting, but I can assure the hon. Member that every effort is directed to reduce delay to a minimum and I understand that the average waiting time does not exceed 10 minutes.

Mr. HUDSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the average delay is more than 20 minutes and it applies not only to Huddersfield but to other towns in Yorkshire, and will he take into account further the fact that Manchester and towns round Manchester get a very considerable advantage in the cotton industry as against Huddersfield traders on account of his refusal to give Huddersfield the facilities they have had for four years?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I can only say as regards the time of waiting that my information is as already stated. As regards facilities, previous facilities
for a "no delay" service were an exceptional arrangement and were due to the fact that the line via Leeds was technically unsuitable for Huddersfield-Liverpool traffic. Now traffic on the Manchester lines has grown, it is impossible any longer to continue without result to the normal line via Leeds which is now entirely in order. I may add that the total traffic involved is quite small and that the Leeds line can easily accommodate it without undue delay.

Mr. HUDSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that those calls are extremely important and that Huddersfield and the Colne Valley are for all practical purposes part of the cotton district on account of their numerous cotton interests?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I quite appreciate that fact, and anything I can do to improve the service will be done.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

CROWN ESTATES, YORKSHIRE (FARMERS' NOTICES TO QUIT).

Sir HENRY CAUTLEY: 32.
asked the Minister of Agriculture for how many of the farms on the Sunk Island or other Crown properties in the East Riding of Yorkshire notice to quit has been given; when do such notices expire; what are the rentals per acre of such farms; and are any of them now vacant or being farmed by the Ministry, or does he contemplate farming any of them?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE and FISHERIES (Mr. Guinness): Notices to quit have been received from the tenants of seven farms on the Crown estates in the East Riding. Three of the notices expire to-morrow and four on 5th April, 1929. The rentals of the farms per acre are, respectively, 35s., 33s. 8d., 33s., 29s., 28s., 23s. 4d. and 21s. 8d. As regards the three cases in which the notices expire to-morrow, one tenant has agreed to re-hire his farm and the other two farms will be taken in hand by the Commissioners of Crown Lands until such time as they can be re-let.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: Is it not a fact that these farms contain some of the best farming land in that part of England, and that the throwing up of these farms
shows the terrible state of agriculture and that it is absolutely necessary that the Government should do something to give the farmers some immediate relief?

Mr. GUINNESS: I do not know that that conclusion can necessarily be based on these particular cases in which notice to quit has been given to the Commissioners. One notice has been given by the executors of a tenant who has died, two men have had to give up their farms on account of ill-health, and two other farms have been given up by men farming other land in the district but who do not reside on the Crown estate.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: Do I understand that no new tenants have applied for these farms?

Mr. GUINNESS: They are large farms and, as my hon. and learned Friend knows, it is that class of farms which it is just now difficult to let, but we do not anticipate that we shall be unable to let them eventually.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Are we to understand from the right hon. Gentleman's reply that the real explanation of the loss of these five tenants is not agricultural depression as stated by the hon. and learned Member?

Mr. GUINNESS: No, I am quite sure that agricultural depression must enter into consideration with many farmers, but, as I informed the House, there are special circumstances applying to five of these cases.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Was not this land previously farmed by the Ministry for training purposes?

Mr. GUINNESS: No, it is not part of the Patrington Estate.

Mr. E. BROWN: Is not one of the circumstances the lack of rural housing on these large farms in Yorkshire?

Mr. GUINNESS: I am not aware of that.

CREDITS.

Lieut.-Colonel RUGGLES-BRISE: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Agriculture if he can make an announcement with regard to the intentions of the Government as to long and short term agricultural credits, in view of the increasing
pressure which is being exerted on farmers for repayment of mortgages and loans?

Mr. GUINNESS: No information has previously come to my notice that mortgagors are being pressed unduly for repayment of mortgages and loans. I am afraid that I am not yet in a position to name a date for the introduction of the Government Measure to deal with agricultural credit.

Lieut.-Colonel RUGGLES-BRISE: Can my right hon. Friend say if it is quite certain that the Government's Bill will be completed before the end of the Session?

Mr. GUINNESS: I have every expectation that it will be. We hope to introduce it at an early date.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: Is there any truth in the statement in to-day's "Times" that a leading bank will not have anything to do with the credits scheme?

Mr. GUINNESS: I do not think that I have seen that statement. We have had difficulties which I trust are now satisfactorily surmounted.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is this financial stress among the farmers, seeing that since the War no fearer than 100,000 tenants have purchased their holdings?

Mr. GUINNESS: That really has nothing to do with the position. The trouble is that they purchased their holdings when the price of agricultural land stood at a much higher figure than today.

Mr. HARDIE: What we are suffering from is——

HON. MEMBERS: Speech!

BRITISH SHIPS (FOREIGN SAILORS).

Rear-Admiral SUETER: 33.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the case of an English ship sailing from Canada to South Africa, under British officers, in which there were in the crew one Swiss, one Swede, one Greek, and 14 Germans; and whether he will take steps to enforce a greater proportion of British seamen in the mercantile marine?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Herbert Williams): My attention has not been called to the case to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers. The proportion of foreigners in the British mercantile marine has diminished considerably during the last 20 years and shows no sign of increasing. I am sending my hon. and gallant Friend a copy of the figures which were circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT on 28th February last, showing the position in this respect in 1913, and in each of the last five years. In the circumstances it is not proposed to take any action in the matter.

Mr. MACLEAN: Can the hon. Gentleman explain the terms in this question—"an English ship under British officers"?

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I did not draft the question.

Mr. MACLEAN: How are you to understand how to reply to it?

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Quite easily.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Can the hon. Gentleman inform the House why a British-owned ship is manned by German seamen?

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: The existing Acts only require, I think, that the master and mate shall he British subjects.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether or not this is inconsistent with the Government's general policy——

HON. MEMBERS: Order!

OMNIBUS FARES, NORTH LONDON.

Mr. R. MORRISON: 38.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he has now received amended schedules from omnibus companies operating on North London routes, giving details of recent increases of fares; and will he state the routes concerned?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): Certain omnibus proprietors operating in North London have recently deposited amended schedules in respect of approved routes numbers 29,
529 and 538, from which it appears that certain of the fares charged have been increased.

Mr. MORRISON: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman satisfied that the only result of all the representations from the local authorities in the North of London and of all the deputations he has received is that the people in North London are going to have reduced services and higher fares?

Colonel ASHLEY: It is within the province of local authorities to make an appeal to me, and, if they do make an appeal to me, and if the fares are unduly high, I can order them to be lowered.

Mr. CRAWFURD: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say if, in the case of all omnibus routes in London, any increase of fares has to be assented to by the Traffic Advisory Committee or not; whether they have any power of revision in respect of an increase of fares?

Colonel ASHLEY: No, but, if any local authority in the London traffic area thinks that the fares charged in that area are unduly high, they can appeal to me, and I can, if I think their complaint is justified, order the fares to be reduced.

Mr. CRAWFURD: Is there any other body or person who can appeal?

Colonel ASHLEY: it must be a local authority.

Mr. AUSTIN HOPKINSON: Are not these increases of fares due to the increased rationalisation of the London traffic?

WOMEN POLICE.

Mr. DAY: 40.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what decision has been arrived at by his Department with regard to the suggestion made to him by the National Council of Women that the establishment of women police should be increased?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Lieut.-Colonel Sir Vivian Henderson): As my right hon. Friend informed the hon. Member on 15th March, the matter is still under consideration.

Mr. DAY: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether he has received a report from the Area Superintendents and whether they are favourable to its reduction or increase?

Viscountess ASTOR: Is it not true that the circular sent out by the Home Secretary to encourage local authorities to have an increased number of women police, simply had the effect of discouraging them, and will he realise that they are long overdue and hurry up and make up his mind.

Sir V. HENDERSON: I can assure the Noble Lady that my right hon. Friend realises all that.

Viscountess ASTOR: Well, it is time he was doing something.

SOLOMON ISLANDS.

Mr. WELLS: 43.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has any information with regard to the death of 11 natives imprisoned at Sinarango, in the Solomon Islands?

Captain MARGESSON (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to answer this question. I regret to say that there has been an outbreak of dysentery among the prisoners and that eight deaths have been reported. All possible measures have been taken by the senior medical officer to deal with the outbreak and the situation is said to be improving.

Mr. WELLS: 44.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will give instructions for the commissioner who is holding an inquiry into the recent troubles in the Solomon Islands to inquire into the prison conditions of natives awaiting their trial?

Captain MARGESSON: I have been asked to take this question. Before deciding whether it is desirable to enlarge the inquiry so as to include this subject, my right hon. Friend would prefer to await the report which he expects to receive from the High Commissioner for the Western Pacific.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. CLYNES: Can the Prime Minister announce what business will be taken
when the House reassembles after Easter?

The PRIME MINISTER: On Tuesday, 17th April: Committee stage of the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill; and of the Post Office Sites Bill; and Report and Third Reading of the Petroleum Amendment Bill.
Wednesday, 18th April: Committee stage of the Representation of the People (Equal Franchise) Bill.
Thursday, 19th April: Second Reading of the Agricultural Produce (Grading and Marking) Bill; Report and Third Reading of the Local Authorities (Emergency Provisions) Bill, and, if time permit, other Orders.

Mr. CLYNES: With regard to business on the Wednesday, is there any particular part of the Bill which it is intended to complete on the first day of the Committee stage?

The PRIME MINISTER: Not so far as I am aware, but I have not had an opportunity of consulting the Home Secretary at the moment. I assume that we shall go straight forward with the Bill.

Resolved,
That this House do meet To-morrow, at Eleven of the clock; that no Questions shall be taken after Twelve of the clock; and that at Five of the clock Mr. Speaker shall adjourn the House without Question put.''—[The Piirne' Minister.]

UNPARLIAMENTARY EXPRESSIONS.

Mr. THURTLE: I desire to raise a point of Order. In the course of yesterday's sitting, Mr. Speaker, you ruled out of Order as unparliamentary and invited me to withdraw the words "Pecksniffian cant." As I may upon some subsequent occasion desire to use either or both those words, I shall be glad if, for my guidance, you will explain to me the nature of your objection; whether your objection is to the adjective "Pecksniffian" or to the word "cant."

Mr. SPEAKER: I am not prepared to discuss my Ruling. If the hon. Member seeks information for his guidance I May say that I should take objection both to the one and the other, individually or combined.

Mr. THURTLE: May I be permitted, as a Member of this House who believes in the right of Members to use ordinary vigorous English, to record my protest against your Ruling?

Mr. SPEAKER: That will not affect my decision.

BILLS REPORTED.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (LUTON EXTENSION) BILL.

Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

SHROPSHIRE, WORCESTERSHIRE AND STAFFORDSHIRE ELECTRIC POWER BILL.

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

BROMBOROUGH DOCK BILL. [Lords.]

Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill to be read the Third time.

Orders of the Day — RURAL HOUSING.

4.0 p.m.

Colonel CROOKSHANK: I beg to move,
That this House is of opinion that, in the interests of agriculture and the nation at large, every effort should be made to improve and increase the housing accommodation of the workers in rural districts.
I am extremely gratified to have the opportunity of dealing with this subject, in view of the experience which I had during my service in the Army, when opportunities for new construction and the reconstruction of buildings presented themselves very frequently. Under the former head, I had to do with large barrack construction and drainage contracts, while under the latter head the reconstruction of barracks fell to my lot, particularly those required for married quarters which were almost parallel in their requirements to the housing needed in rural districts to-day and, as a result, one was able to bring these buildings up to date. I may say, in passing, that among the barracks requiring most attention was the military guard wing at Buckingham Palace, where the conditions were extraordinarily bad. Hon. Members will be interested to hear that there are bad cases even so close to us as that. I and my colleagues in the corps to which I belonged were freely criticised in the Service and by the Service for our alleged lack of knowledge in connection with our work. Taunts were thrown at us about building barracks unsuitable to the climate in tropical countries owing to designs for barracks at home having been sent abroad by mistake. We were also criticised for omitting staircases. That omission was rectified by putting up outside stairs, and this incidentally proved of great value in the design for married quarters and similar buildings.
I must give credit to the War Office for having persistently carried out reconstruction work on lines identical with those obtaining under the Housing (Rural Workers) Act. This led me when I was a candidate for Parliament to refer to the subject during the 1924 election campaign. I should like to read to the House
the reference which I made to the subject in my election address:
I will urge the extension of the Housing Acts to provide funds and facilities for the improvement of existing houses, and particularly those of farm servants, so as to bring them up to date in accommodation, water supply and sanitation.
It was a matter of great gratification to me when the Minister of Health brought in his Bill dealing with the housing of rural workers. I would commend to hon. Members a study of the Circulars issued by the Ministry of Health and the Scottish Board of Health on rural housing, and the excellent housing manual published by the Ministry of Health in 1927. The manual is a very remarkable work and forms a very good guide for anyone interested in different styles of architecture and in all forms of improved accommodation. I will not attempt this afternoon to discuss the merits of the various Acts, but I would draw attention to the fact that the Wheatley Act has been of considerable assistance in rural districts, owing to its increased subsidy, but it hits a certain numbers of burghs and urban areas whose population is practically rural, where owing to the conditions of the Act they are not able to qualify for the increased rate. To a certain extent the Wheatley Act and others are meeting the shortage, but their usefulness is discounted somewhat by seasonal and week-end visitors using the accommodation which had been built to meet the local housing shortage. I think shortcomings in this direction have been met by the Rural Workers Housing Act, which assures up-to-date conditions for that very desirable body of people who are the backbone of British agriculture, and whose conditions have long merited sympathy and improvement. The Act also applies to other people in the same economic conditions in burghs and urban districts. I made an inquiry from the Ministry of Health on this point as to buildings not necessarily occupied by rural workers, and received this reply:
There is nothing to prevent a dwelling in respect of which assistance may have been given under the Act being occupied by a fisherman if his income complies with the conditions prescribed in Section 3 (1).
There is nothing to prevent assistance being given in respect of a house or building situated in a borough or urban district.
I should like to take this opportunity of expressing my gratitude to the
Minister of Health and the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland and their staffs for the assistance they have given me in supplying figures with regard to rural housing in England and Scotland. Let me place these statistics before the House. In England and Wales, up to March, 1928, 168,951 houses were completed in rural districts since the War under the various housing Acts. Up to the 30th September, 1927, 108,877 were completed by private enterprise, giving a total of 277,828 houses. It is impossible to allot these figures to rural workers or agricultural parishes, but under the 1924 Act, which gave a higher subsidy, over 10,000 houses were completed. Let me refer to the statistics of two counties which I have taken at random. The County of Wiltshire built 690 houses under the 1919 Addison Act, 111 under its Additional Powers Act, 923 under the 1923 Chamberlain Act, and 588 under the Wheatley 1924 Act, making a total of 2,312. while 799 non-subsidy houses were built, making a grand total for that county of 3,111 houses.
In Yorkshire, East Riding, 161 houses were built under the 1919 Act., 263 under its Additional Powers Act, 690 under the Chamberlain Act, and 109 under the Wheatley Act, making a total of 1,223, while 522 non-subsidy houses were built, making a total for that county of 1.745, which I think shows a satisfactory improvement from the agricultural point of view. It is interesting to note that rough data taken from the rural district returns shows that the average product of a penny rate in Wiltshire is £3,200, and in Yorkshire, East Riding, £2,325. I give these figures because I am going to base a few remarks on the effect of a penny rate on the housing problem. The annual charge on the rates incurred for these various housing schemes is £5,200 in the case of Wiltshire, and £2,514 in the case of Yorkshire, East Riding, which means an average rate of 1.6 of a penny in Wiltshire, and 1.1 of a penny in Yorkshire. It shows that it is not a grievous addition to the rates. Compare this with the corresponding road rates in these two counties of ls.. 10d. in Wiltshire, and 1s. lld. in Yorkshire, East Riding, an education rate of 2s. 10d. and 2s. 3d., and a general purposes rates of 3s. and 2s. 7d., it shows that the housing in the country
districts bears a very small proportion to the cost under other heads.
Let me now deal with some figures for Scotland. Up to March, 1928, 13,485 houses were completed since the War under the various housing Acts, and 7,011 by private enterprise, making a total of 20,496. In the same way we cannot allot these houses to purely agricultural workers, but under the Wheatley subsidy 804 houses were completed. Let me give figures from one of the counties. In Perthshire 59 houses were constructed under the Addison scheme, none under the 1923 Act, and 138 under the 1924 Act, making a total of 197. By private enterprise, 177 houses were built, making a total for that county of 374. In a great scattered county like this these figures do not compare favourably with the English figures. When we turn to the Housing (Rural Workers) Act you get rather different conditions. I will start with some of the English results. Under the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 45 county councils submitted schemer. There were 16 counties which submitted no scheme, but in 13 of these the district councils were the declared authority. Out of 64 non-county borough councils, 12 have submitted schemes; out of 96 urban district councils 17 have submitted schemes, and out of 143 rural district councils, 103 have submitted schemes. The total applications in England and Wales were 599, entailing grants of £10,852, and loans of £1,275 were promised in the case of 151 houses. In Scotland the progress has been more remarkable. Out of 107 district councils 68 have presented schemes, some have intimated that they do not propose to do so as their share of the grant was too heavy—notably in the crofting areas of the Highlands.
Let me give three counties in Scotland including one in my own constituency, so that the House will be better able to appreciate the position. In Aberdeenshire, a grant of £1,200 was promised to the Garrioch District Council which meant that the local authorities' responsibility was £600, or say £50 annually for 20 years. A penny rate brings in £298, so the liabilty is only about.2d. It shows that in the case of Aberdeenshire the effect of a penny rate is infinitesimal when you compare it with the road rate of 4s., an education rate of ls. 9d., and
a general district rate of 3s. 5d. In East Lothian Western District, a grant of £9,500 was promised, but since then it has been considerably increased. This means that the local authority is responsible for £4,750, or say £380 annually for 20 years. A penny rate in this district produces £730, and the liability is therefore about.5d. annually. The road rate here is 2s. 2d., the education rate 2s. 8d., and the general rate 1s. In Peebles, a grant of £1,200 has been; promised, which means that the local authority has to find £600, or £50 annually for 20 years. A penny rate in this district produces £462, which means that there is a liability of about.1d.; in comparison with a road rate of 3s. 5d., an education rate of 2s. 2d., and a general rate, of ls. 7d. These figures are extremely instructive as showing the infinitesimal amount that has been incurred on work carried out under the Rural Workers Act, compared with the road rate, the education rate and the general rate.
These facts and figures ought to tend to awaken interest in the subject. The total applications received in Scotland were 493, and the grants promised were 284, representing an amount of 226,000, or £13,000 against the local authority. A further interesting comparison is possible. The local authority's maximum contribution of £50 means £4 annually for 20 years as against the rates. If you put this against the £4 which is roughly the local contribution under the Wheatley Act, but for 40 years, I think it will be seen at once that you get twice the effect under the Housing (Rural Workers) Act that you get under the Wheatley Act. As the £50, which is the maximum local authority contribution, is not likely to be necessary in every case, the prospects are still better. In East Lothian the county authorities estimate that they will be able to deal with 200 to 250 houses with a penny rate, as against 200 Wheatley houses on the same rate, only for double the time; as it is 20 years under the Housing (Rural Workers) Act and 40 years under the Wheatley Act.
I anticipate that there will be some reference from the Socialist Benches to tied houses, but I do not quite understand the objection to them. It seems to me that they supply security of tenure
for the class of rural workers on farms. In Scotland this is particularly necessary in view of the annual hiring system and what are called the flitting; which may result in all the workers on a farm changing yearly. If there were not a system of houses allotted to rural workers on farms the situation might be very awkward. This would be particularly the case in many places which are popular from the seasonal point of view, when there might be very little accommodation left for the farm workers. Scotland particularly stands to benefit more than any other country from the Rural Workers Act, as it enables their buildings which usually contain four to six cottages to be easily brought up to date and thus ensure the comfort of the rural worker.
The figures I have given show that there is need for a stimulation of effort under the Act. I would like to read an extract from a statement by one of the local authorities in my constituency. The statement accentuates the view that I have expressed, and is as follows:
It would not seem that a 2d. or even 3d. rate for improvement of rural housing is out of the way, looking to the benefits which will be secured in many directions, both direct and indirect, and in a way which we probably do not realise at the moment.
That shows what the benefits of the Act will be to those employed on the land. The same authority criticises the very high road rates. Although it is not in order for me to discuss that subject on this Motion, I have to refer to it because the road rates operate very heavily in many of the counties of Scotland by reason of the heavy through traffic which does not benefit the county. I hold that the Housing (Rural Workers) Act requires stimulating for the following reasons: In the first place the benefit to agriculture would be immense in comparison with the cost likely to be incurred, as it would keep people contented on the land and would enable farms to be kept up to the mark. This is a very important point, as it is impossible for owners who are without independent means to do this work. As properties are now getting much more into the hands of those who are working them, the necessity is greater than ever. Secondly, the Act would improve the condition of the workers and the standard of living of a very deserving class. One has to remember that this class has all the
amenities and advantages of town life denied to it. For a population which constitutes the backbone of the country it is necessary to give every help that can be given to this end. Thirdly, it would preserve the amenity and the picturesqueness of our cottages.
This applies more particularly to England. I will refer only briefly to specimens which we have in England and which do not exist in any other country. There are the half-timbered cottages of the Midlands and the South, there are the Cotswold stone houses, and in Northamptonshire the yellow stone cottages. Those who advocate new houses as against bringing these beautiful old buildings up to date do not realise what they would lose if they supplanted the old buildings. This Act enables the old buildings to be improved according to modern ideas without impairing the beauty of the English landscape. One regrets that in Scotland the conditions are not quite so picturesque, but that does not necessarily mean that the Act is not equally beneficial. In Scotland the buildings are much more appropriately designed to get the benefit of the Act, as they are generally in blocks of four or more dwellings, and by providing water supply and drainage and other improvements they can be brought up to date at reasonable cost.
As against these three advantages, the Bill has been criticised as a landlord benefit Bill by Socialist Members. We have heard from them a great deal about housing the workers in stables and pig-styes. This was particularly the case during the Committee stage of the Act. I would like permission to read an extract from a letter by Sir William Younger, who, as is well known, is intimately connected with housing in Scotland. In that letter, which appeared in the "Times" in December, 1926, Sir William Younger said:
Mr. Wheatley talks of 'patching up old houses' and that the Government is acting on the belief that it is 'folly to provide new houses' as 'the old ones will do quite well,' inferring that the Government considers that any old shanty is good enough for working people. Mr. Greenwood also, … said that 'This is an attempt to nationalise the worst dwellings in the countryside, while leaving them in private ownership.'
Sir William Younger continues:
Why scrap them in these days of financial stringency when, at less than half the
cost of building new ones, they can be brought up to the standard which was laid down by the Royal Commission on Housing in Scotland as necessary for modern requirements?
There is probably some measure of truth in the contention that the Act may be to the landlords' benefit, but I ask the critics of the Act, what objection is there to that fact? Are these buildings to be allowed to deteriorate until new construction is necessary at vastly increased expenditure? Are we in Scotland to scrap, or allow to be scrapped, all the existing buildings because they belong to someone—I do not know whom—and to replace them by new buildings? It must be remembered that many owners, the proprietors of small farms, having regard to the conditions of the last two or three years, have not very much money left to spend on improving buildings. I hope, therefore, that that contention will cease.
In regard to the criticism of stables, I would refer to a point which I made in Committee regarding the experience I had in South Africa, I was building barracks at Potchefstroom for cavalry. Before they were occupied by cavalry we were told to convert them into infantry barracks. The buildings were turned into infantry barracks, and after a year or two were, reconverted to cavalry barracks. That, shows what is practicable, and I cannot see any odium attached to the conversion of stables into dwellings. I would like to refer to something of the same kind nearer home, as Hon. Members, if they like, can see mews being converted into residences every day in London, and very proper and practicable residences they make. Any stigma as to stables is not worth a moment's thought, and if the contention of hon. Members opposite is that this is a landlord's benefit—and when I say "landlords" I mean owners, because "landlords" is used as a term of reproach—I would point out that if buildings were allowed to deteriorate, they would soon become pig-styes, and that is the other side of the story. Therefore, I do appeal to hon. Members and to all property owners, farmers and members of local councils, to co-operate, and to consider the necessity and desirability of studying the provisions of this Act, to learn its merits and apply
the advantages offered. Let me refer to what it does. It enables water supply and drainage to be put into buildings where they do not exist, and, if they do happen to exist, stone floors, sculleries and sanitary conveniences. Carrying the water supply into the sculleries saves women having to go out to draw water from the well, which, I think, is one of the tragic things in country life for the working woman. In the same way, closets can be connected up instead of being outside, as is the case almost throughout the country. I think we can all feel for the woman or child who, under any conditions whatsoever, has to go out when these places can be connected with the buildings so very easily. Finally, if required, gas and electric light can be introduced. It shows the elasticity of this Act.
The procedure is extraordinarily simple. I would refer to the pamphlet issued by the Ministry of Health in England and the Board of Health in Scotland on the subject, explaining its application to local conditions. I think, too, that articles in the Press, if I may suggest it, would be beneficial. I found in my own constituency, and in general conversation, how little the conditions were understood, and I will ask the leave of the House to read a small portion of a letter I addressed to "The Scotsman" on the subject.
Irksome stipulations as to accommodation, etc., are wisely avoided, and that for a fixed bath was, in my opinion, very rightly defeated. Wives of workers will readily appreciate this in which I thoroughly agree, after considerable experience in the Army in reconditioning married quarters for all ranks, and its provision is optional.
The principal point to realise is that conditions vary in almost every case, but in most extra accommodation such as a larder, scullery and inside water-closet is, I am sure, of first importance, and if in the scullery a wash-tub and boiler are fitted which will provide hot water for a moveable bath without the fuel consumption necessary in a hot-water service from the kitchen range, it will be agreed that the want is far better met.
I think that is a very important point. Recently, in my constituency, I was heckled about it from the cottagers on the minefields. I had to point out that coal there is a very much cheaper commodity than in the part in which I have to live, some 600 feet up, and a long way
from any station, where it is quite impossible for the rural worker to obtain sufficient fuel to have fires not only for daily cooking but also to heat water. To begin with, these wants generally come at different hours. I commend that to those who are obdurate on the idea of fixed baths, and it seems much better to use your coal for cooking purposes and heat the bath with a few sticks in a copper. I trust, therefore, that the opportunity offered will be made use of before the time limit of the Act is reached, 30th September, 1931. I think that any failure to do so will only result in a lower standard of life on the countryside, and will produce a situation which can only be relieved by evacuation orders and new construction at a very much greater cost, not only to housing authorities, but to individuals, the State, and posterity.
I must refer to the possibility of rings being formed by trades or contractors in connection with this Act. I am sorry to say I have an example in my own constituency, into which I shall have to inquire later, where the estimated cost for 11 cottages was £1,780 or, say, £162 each. The lowest tender was £2,134 or £185 each. There may be special circumstances concerning this, but I fear there may be the possibility that trades or contractors may take advantage of the conditions which offer themselves under this Act to close their ranks. I trust, therefore, that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health in England and the representative of the Board of Health in Scotland will take this into consideration.
In conclusion, may I express my gratification for the consideration which the House has given me in my appeal for this Motion. I trust the House will record in no unmistakable manner its approval of this Motion, that every effort should be made to improve and increase the housing accommodation for workers in rural districts. It is in the interests of individual Members and of agriculture and the nation at large that we should exert ourselves to stimulate the interest of the housing authorities concerned, so that, at all events, the slur of lack of accommodation or of inferior accommodation shall not be laid on the countryside where this opportunity is more favourable than is unfortunately possible to town-dwellers. One knows the difficulty in the case of slum clearances in
towns. Here we have an opportunity in the countryside to bring conditions up to modern standards, and I trust, therefore, that the House will support me in this Motion.

Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: I beg to second the Motion.
I was one of the unfortunate cavalry officers who occupied my hon. and gallant Friend's reconstructed barracks at Potchefstroom, South Africa. Therefore, if I have some grumble against housing conditions, it is because I have had an experience of reconstructed barracks. Like everyone else in houses, we always have our grumble. I should like to draw attention to the serious problem of the housing of agricultural workers. Every Commission we have had—Lord Selborne's Commission, the Agricultural Tribunal of Investigation, the Agricultural Council of England, 1925, the Surveyors' Institution, the Central Landowners' Association, and the National Farmers' Union—have all expressed their opinion that the housing of agricultural workers is one of the most important considerations to help agriculture. I know that Governments have been alive to the fact, as witness the Housing Act, 1923, the Housing Act, 1924, and this last Housing (Rural Workers) Act. Though much has been done, I am one of those who think that more ought to be done, and can be done, without really increasing the burden of rates and taxes.
I propose, first of all, to refer to the Rural Workers Act, not only with a view to criticism, but also to let the Minister know how things are going with the agricultural workers, and I am very sorry that experience in England, as he knows quite well, is not so happy as compared with Scotland—I am not going to appear in a white sheet because I am an agricultural landowner. I spend many hours round my cottages, and know what is necessary, and how difficult it is to get these necessary things done, both for a private individual and a local authority. But my own opinion has been very much reinforced by the clerk of the rural district council in Hungerford. I think this is a district as typical of rural districts as any you can find in England. They have made efforts to cope with the housing problem in a way second to none in England.
Before the War they had 14 houses, and they put up 94 houses under the Addison Act, and 120 under the 1924 Act. The last-named are rented at 5s. a week, and cost them £4 10s. per house per annum. I wrote to my friend the clerk of the council and asked him what was the matter with the Rural Housing Act and why they did not use it more? One reason he gave—and I quite agree with him—was that there is hesitation on the part of owners, owing to the cumbersome procedure in complying with the requirements, particularly in the conditions set forth in Section 3. I, myself, thought of using that Act, but that Section troubled me, and I preferred to go to the Lands Improvement Society, or borrow from my bank, rather than use the Government facilities. I think if the period were 40 instead of 20 years, much more use would be made of this Section of the Act.
Another point which he put—and this is really the vital point—is that there is also great hesitation on the part of the authorities, both county councils and district councils, on account of the extra burden thrown on the rates. This particular council has now before them 23 housing applications for grants, amounting to £2,000, of which £1,000 is money to be found out of the rates. This Act is not used as much as it might be, because, like a good many other things, it puts up the rates. The third point to which he drew my attention is that there has been a good deal of misapprehension that this Act is only for small owners and not for big owners. As my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Hurd) knows, cases have been turned down for that very reason, and I hope that if the Minister wants the Act to be used, he will let the councils know whether it can be used by large owners as well as by small. There are two parts in Section 3 of the Act, one relating to loans and the other to grants, and I understand that the loan part is not a burden on the district, like the grants part. That is why loans are used more. The Newbury District Council the other day, in regard to some charitable trust houses, refused grants because of the burden on the rates, but sanctioned loans.
I believe it would be better if more were known about the provisions of this Act, and I suggest that the surveyors
and other officials should, on the backs of the notices which they send out for repairs, print an intimation that this Housing Act can be used. That would go a great way towards making the provisions of the Measure better known than they are at the present time. The district council to which I have referred—and I suppose the same thing applies to other district councils—is just beginning to wake up to the possibilities of this Act and applications are being sent in. On Wednesday next they are to consider these matters and I gather that most of these applications, if they are granted—they may not be for one reason or another—will mean that the houses in question, when repaired, will be just as good as new houses. There are, however, one or two things to be considered in that connection. Old houses on agricultural estates are generally a long way from a road. People used to be happy under those conditions in former days, but things are different now, and great expense is involved in making roads to some of these cottages nowadays. It is really cheaper and better in many cases to build new cottages on account of the situation of the old cottages. Furthermore, a great many estates have changed hands and a great many farms are farmed in a different way, and consequently houses which were in the right place in their own day, are not now suitable.
In the change which has come over agricultural land, a great many of these buildings which were built for the housing of agricultural workers have ceased to be suitable and, in a great many cases, rather than patch up the old cottages, which are out-of-place rather than out-of-date, it is better to build new cottages. There is one means by which more encouragment might be given in the matter of rural housing. At present, if improvements are made under this Act, if new cottages are built, if practically anything is done to better the condition of an estate, the owner is immediately assessed on the actual improvements he is making. Some way should be found of dealing specially in this respect with bona fide improvements, whether made by local authorities or by private owners. The owner ought not to be fined for doing the right
thing, but ought to be allowed a few years exemption from the extra assessment. It would encourage private enterprise and would help public enterprise as well in this respect, and would lead to a general all-round improvement in housing conditions.
Hon. Members opposite will forgive me, perhaps, if I throw a half-brick in their direction on this question. I know they will return it to me, later on, but I would point out the answer which was given to a question put by me the other day as to the number of houses completed by rural district councils in England and Wales up to 1st March. The answer was to the effect that under the 1923 Act there were 92,532, and under the 1924 Act, 24,525, and the houses built without any subsidy at all, up to April, 1927, numbered 76,387. Whether that was due to private enterprise without subsidy, or not—whatever you like to call it—it is a great addition to rural housing in this country and people who do anything to discourage this sort of building do grievous harm to the cause of rural housing. There is another point on which I am sorry the Ministry will not answer me, and that is in regard to the question of rents. I do not in the least claim for these 76,000 houses that they are houses at the rents which we want, namely, 5s. a week or less. I think the mistake that has been made in connection with these rural housing Acts is that the matter has not been looked at, to begin with, from the point of view of a rent of 5s, a week. The rural district council to which I have just referred brought up a scheme three years ago to take advantage of the Wheatley Act, and the first thing they did was to start at the bottom and to inquire "What is a rent suitable to rural workers?" They based their calculation on the fact that rural workers could not afford more than 5s. a week, and I suggest that any further housing legislation in connection with rural areas should be based on that principle.
We should begin at the right end and ascertain the rent which the agricultural labourer can pay. You are getting something for nothing out of the big landowners, and out of the people who have built these 76,000 cottages, and I quite fail to realise the Socialist point
of view in trying to do away with these very people who are helping the situation now, and who have helped more than anyone else in this matter in the past. Hon. Members opposite are very fond of quoting people like Lord Ernle in favour of their schemes of nationalisation. They know perfectly well that though they may quote an occasional sentence which, when isolated, gives that impression, Lord Ernle is dead against such schemes. If they will read Mr. Dampier Whetham's book, which deals with the subject not from the political but from the purely agricultural point of view, they will see that in referring to this matter he says:
Even if rural rents rise to their true relative level, the gain will not all go to the privy purse of the landlord.
it is remarked by Colonel Peel and Professor Orwin—and I understand hon. Members opposite think a great deal of them and are following a great many of their proposals:
The net income is rarely available for the landowner to the extent that the incomes of other investors are, for the owners of agricultural property have behind them a tradition of sharing their possessions with the community in which they live, to an extent unknown in any other class.
No fair person can deny that statement. I am not talking of any landowners other than agricultural landowners. I have often heard the Minister of Agriculture in the last Government say that all nationalisation of the land meant was to have things done as well as the good landowner had always done them. I have reason to know that the new landowners are carrying on this tradition, and it is unfair to run down landowners as a class. There are bad landowners, as there are bad people everywhere, but hon. Members opposite are only spoiling their own case in making unfair suggestions against those who are doing more to help in solving this problem than almost any other body, even the Ministry. I cannot understand the suggestion contained in the Amendment to the Motion which refers to the tyranny of tied cottages. If hon. Members opposite were at a round table conference with, say, the committee of the Council of Agriculture, or with any other representative body, I cannot imagine that they would ever advocate this policy in regard to tied cottages.
Supposing their own Government comes in, and they want to put their Prime Minister into Chequers, is it not right to turn out the other Prime Minister? In the same way, if a good cowman is being brought in on a farm to replace one who has not been a success, why should not the latter be turned out to make way for the better man? If it is good enough for a Prime Minister, why should it not be good enough for the cowman or the agricultural labourer?
I do not think, however, that we shall get much "forwarder" with the discussion of the rural housing question on political lines. This is an important problem and all parties have made their contributions towards its solution. The local authorities should use all these Acts and try to get things on to a better footing. There are other ways to help as well as lowering the rates. As has been pointed out already, the rates in respect of roads, constitute a handicap on the provision of houses in rural districts but there is also the Rent Restrictions Act. Many of these cottages are occupied by week-enders who have no real interest in the country at all, except to go there occasionally and they deprive the agricultural labourers of cottages. It is true that they pay bigger rents, and it is a great temptation to a landlord to get 9s. a week instead of 3s. a week. Although I do not believe in too much interference, I think the local authorities should have some power in their own districts regarding matters of this kind, which are to the detriment of the agricultural industry as a whole.
I wish also the Minister would impress on county councils and district councils and other authorities the necessity for housing their own employés. It is nonsense for the Government and for local bodies to lay down regulations about housing when they will not see after the housing of their own officials, such as school teachers, postmen, police, road-men and others. I am glad to see that local authorities are beginning to house their own people because the shortage of houses for agricultural labourers has been aggravated in the country villages by the inaction of local bodies in this respect. These public bodies should recognise that it is part of their duty to provide for their own people. The
old-fashioned squire always did so for his people, and the example should be followed. Then facilities could be given in villages with regard to the accommodation of old age pensioners. I think some of the builders of the old almshouses in our country towns and villages possibly did better work than they knew. They realised that an old couple only require two rooms, and I suggest that it should be possible to amend the regulations in these Acts, so as to permit of two-roomed cottages for the old people instead of tying them down to three-roomed or four-roomed cottages.
There does not seem to be any reason why old age pensioners should not be provided with two-roomed cottages somewhere near the place where they have lived all their lives, and this could be done without very great expense. These old people may have sons, working possibly on the estates or farms where they themselves have worked. When the children grow up they must have cottages of their own, and I do not see why the old people could not be accommodated in these smaller and cheaper cottages. The provision of two-roomed cottages for old age pensioners and others whose needs they suit, would be a great help to the countryside. I hope also that steps may be taken to deal with another menace which is growing in the countryside, namely, the erection of bungalows. The local district councils ought to have some power to prevent the selling of land for that purpose. It is not the landowner who is to blame. The landowner may have to sell his land, and it then gets into the hands of a speculator, and it is the speculator who is putting up these bungalows, which are going to become slums some day. There is no doubt that the Society for the Preservation of Rural England is on the right lines—and I hope the Government will give it some support—in wanting all the villages, instead of being spread out along the roadside, to be grouped together. It would be more economical and more sanitary and better in every way, and it would not spoil the look of the countryside. That is all a part of the rural housing question, and I hope that whatever Government is in power will take action in that direction before it is too late.
Lastly, I believe again in the old country squire and what he did. The first thing that he did when he got his estate was to think of his workmen and build for them and put up cottages, and then, of course, he had to build steadings for his cattle. Now you have this great change in England, and businesses, they tell us, are coming down from the North. They put up their factories, and what do they do for the housing of the people whom they employ? There are many factories being put up in Southern England, and they are causing the overcrowding in those areas. I think the local authorities in this matter, in the same way as I should like to see them have power over the licensing of greyhound racing, should have power, when factories are built in their areas, not only to give the necessary permission for building the factories, but also to withhold that permission until the management have made proper arrangements for housing the people who have to work in those factories. I will conclude by thanking the House for listening to me for so long.

Mr. BARR: I am very pleased that the hon. and gallant Member for Berwick and Haddington (Colonel Crook-shank) has brought this subject before the House, both because he himself has taken great interest in it, but still more because it is of the most urgent importance and because it gives us an opportunity of reviewing the progress, or rather the lack of progress, under the Act of 1926. I will take the opportunity, even if I strike a personal note, of reminding the House that I did not, when this Act was under discussion in 1926, give it indiscriminate condemnation, but I said that I would take it for what it was worth. I said that I did not deprecate it altogether, and that there were certain parts of it that I would not criticise or decry, but I think it would be well to bring back to the attention of the House the claims that were put forward at that time by the Government and their supporters as to the wonderful things that this Act would do, in order that we may examine how far those predictions have been fulfilled. The Minister of Health said:
It is a practicable and serviceable proposition, which will do, in a short time, more than has hitherto been done to provide better accommodation for the agricultural worker."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd August, 1926; col. 2947, Vol. 198.]
The hon. Member for Norfolk South (Mr. Christie) said:
It will do a tremendous amount of good."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd August, 1926; col. 2864, Vol. 198.]
The hon. and learned Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley) said:
This Measure … will do more to bring comfort and health to the working population of our rural districts than any Measure that has been introduced into this House for many years."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd August, 1926; col. 2868, Vol. 198.]

Sir HENRY CAUTLEY: But the Minister killed it by not leaving it to the rural district councils. He handed it over to the county councils.

Mr. BARR: I certainly think, from that remark, that I have done some service in bringing to our notice that, in the opinion of the hon. and learned Member for East Grinstead, we are to-day thrashing a dead horse and that the Act is already killed. I might also quote just one other of the tributes to this Act when it was in the passing. The hon. and gallant Member for Yeovil. (Major G. Davies) said:
This Measure … shows how we can get unproved housing for agricultural and similar workers with the least expenditure of money and in the shortest possible time."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd August, 1926; col. 2888, Vol. 198.]
When we compare these high expectations and, if I may say so without offence, these high pretensions with the actual figures, we reach a complete anti-climax. We have heard to-day of the great amount of housing that has been done under the various Acts, of the tens of thousands of houses that have been built over a period of years, and I should like those figures to be borne in mind when I again give to the House the figures which I think were submitted by the hon. and gallant Member who moved the Motion. The applications for the whole of England up to the 31st December last were 599; assistance was promised in the case of 151 houses, and work was in progress on 89 houses. Both the hon. and gallant Member for Berwick and Haddington, who moved the Motion, and the hon. and gallant Member for Newbury (Brigadier-General Brown), who seconded it, prided themselves that Scotland had done something more, and indeed it has, but even there the applications only numbered 395, 281 houses were approved, and
the grants promised were not more than £25,763; and the work completed at that date—and remember that this Act only runs for five years, and that almost a year and a-half had been completed at the date in question—was 62 houses, the grants paid were £4,380, and 156 houses were in progress. It is indeed "the day of small things." The hon. and gallant Gentleman said we should have to apply some considerable stimulus to this Act. There is a variety of opinions about the value of stimulants, and we have our own opinions, but in modern times, I believe, doctors never administer stimulants unless the patient is in a most precarious condition indeed. I think this physician has come in at the point of death and can think of nothing more than a little stimulant.

Dr. VERNON DAVIES: Nonsense!

Mr. BARR: Perhaps the hon. Member for Royton (Dr. V. Davies) belongs to an older school of physicians. I am speaking of the more modern physicians. To go on with my metaphor, when the hon. and gallant Gentleman went on to a eulogium of this Bill it seemed to me that the patient had died on his hands and that he was giving a funeral oration over the remains. He made one admission that I must notice. He said that this was of value because in these days there were so many landlords who for various reasons were no longer with the means in hand to do these improvements. I think his words were that it was impossible for the owners to do it without assistance. Certainly that is a fair paraphrase, and he admitted that in some way it might be counted for the landlords' benefit, but I would wish to ask this: If the landlords in large numbers cannot perform their former function of providing houses for the rural workers on their estates, what is the function of the landlord other than that of a rent collector?

Brigadier-General BROWN: If the hon. Member was referring to me, I pointed out——

Mr. BARR: I was referring to the hon. and gallant Member for Berwick and Haddington.

Colonel CROOKSHANK: I should rather like the hon. Member to think of the case of the owner-farmer who has a small property.How is he going to
carry out his work in view of the situation during the last three years?

Mr. BARR: The owner-farmer has the greatest difficulty in carrying out his work because during the War the large landowners took advantage of the situation and forced him in many cases to buy his land at inflated values, and therefore he is in his present difficulty. I think that cannot be refuted by the hon. and gallant Member or by anyone else in this House. I would like to know from the Minister in charge what has been the indirect value of this Act. When it was before the House we were told that it would have a great indirect value in this respect, that authorities would be able to go to landlords and say, "Your property is derelict, and unless you take advantage of this Act, we will put the Act into operation and will oblige you to repair." I would like the Minister to tell us how far, if at all, this Act has been effective in that way, and how many prosecutions have ensued because of the derelict conditions in the country. I should also like to ask, in regard to these small numbers of houses that have been built, bow many of them are inhabited by agricultural workers. I should like to have asked the hon. and gallant Member for Newbury how many of his 76,000 houses were inhabited by agricultural labourers.

Brigadier-General BROWN: That is one question that I wanted the Minister to answer, and I said that he ought to find that out, but I know personally that a very great many of those houses are occupied by agricultural workers.

Mr. BARR: Then the hon. and gallant Member and I are agreed in pressing the Minister to give us this particular information. I remember that when this Bill was under discussion one hon. Member gave an instance from Somerset of 230 houses provided in rural areas, only 12 of which were inhabited by agricultural workers, and when you remember that, you see how very slender is anything that has been done under this Act. The condition of our rural housing in regard to agricultural workers is deplorable. I had the honour for three years of being a member of the Royal Commission on Housing, and we had evidence from farmers; proprietors, and medical men all over the country that in many
parts there was not such a thing as a sanitary convenience of any kind in these houses. I think it was one of the hon. and gallant Members who introduced this Motion who asked why we should scrap some of these old houses. I will tell him why some of them should be scrapped, and not in my own words, but in the words of a factor from my own district of Kilmarnock, who gave evidence before the Royal Commission on Housing and who said:
A great many are in this condition. You would require to pull them down and renew them, but to patch them up, it would not be worth while.
Therefore, when we have our minds on the little that has been done, and the great need that exists, it will be agreed that something more than stimulus is wanted from the Government. I will not trench on the subject of the tied-house, because that will be referred to afterwards in connection with the Amendment. I agree with the hon. and gallant Member that, perhaps in some parts, there may be a distinction to be drawn between the difficulties in Scotland and those in England.I will give one illustration of the tied system. In Ireland, under the Irish Labourers Acts, up to March, 1915, 45,000 houses were put up by the county councils, and they departed from the system of the tied house. A grant of 36 per cent. was given by the State, and there was a loan of £8,900,000. The inquiries of the Commission showed two things: first, that the houses were much better kept, because the Irish peasant had a house worth keeping: second, that he had a position of independence which he had not had before. Goldsmith speaks of a "bold peasantry," but it is not a bold peasant that we have to-day; it is a cringing peasant, and we want, by giving him his own house and his own security, to give him a new independence. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who seconded the Motion used the argument that, after all, there was nothing wrongful in evicting a labourer——

Brigadier-General BROWN: I did not say anything of the sort.

Mr. BARR: My hon. and gallant Friend might have allowed me to finish the sentence; he would have seen that I was not going to use words intending to misrepresent his arguments. His argument
was that if we on this side could evict the Prime Minister from Chequers, there could not be so much wrong—if I did not misunderstand him—in the tied house system.

Brigadier-General BROWN: I said that there was no more hardship in the Prime Minister changing than there would be in a cowman changing his quarters.

Mr. BARR: I accept the statement, but it only confirms my argument, and I do not think that I stated it unfairly after all. He seems to look on the Government as having a kind of tied house, or having control over the tied house in this regard. If, without any great hardship, the landlord can evict an agricultural labourer, then, without so great a hardship, and certainly with very just cause, we can evict the Prime Minister from Chequers. As it is usual to give notice in such case, I would say that the term for which the notice will be given will be Whitsun Day, 1929. I should like to refer to one other aspect, namely, that of divided control, which we know so well in Scotland. The whole matter of repair falls between that dual control of the landlord and the farmer, and we had evidence from landlords and others on the subject before the Commission. Lord Lovat gave testimony that very often, when the farmer takes the farm and looks round the cattle sheds and the stables, and finds everything in proper order, or asks that it be put in proper order, he does not like to ask too much, and perhaps does not visit the houses of the labourers of all. We desire to see something which will put the labourer in a much better and more independent position.
I should like to emphasise what fell from the hon. and gallant Gentleman as to the creation of a higher standard of housing, and a new sense of its value, and what he said about the small amount spent on housing as compared with other services. We need a totally new sense in regard to this matter. It is admitted on all sides that under all Acts the progress has been slow. In Scotland, under the powers that were given by the Crofters Act, and the Acts of 1919, 1923 and 1924, the results were disappointing. Last year was the best in Scotland. Including all kinds of houses, 14,000 were built, but when the Scottish Board of Health admit that 10,000 a year
are required normally, even that is no great progress. In the Annual Report of the Scottish Board of Health of 1924 or 1925, it was pointed out that of the houses that had been planned only four were completed and 78 under construction in rural areas.
There is only one way of getting a new sense in regard to housing, and that is by setting up worthy houses, which refine and ennoble the character In the admirable report of the Scottish Board of Health reference is made to the common saying that if you give people good houses they cannot use them properly, and will put coals in the bath, and turn the houses into pig stys, and so forth. I was very glad that the Scottish Board of Health said that in all the visits to houses that had been made, they did not find a single case. It is a fact that, if you give people something worth keeping, it will tend to uplift and refine them. The agricultural labourer is as worthy of a bath and modern conveniences as the farmer or the landlord. The name of Sir William Younger has been quoted, and it might appear, from what was read, that he does not take an advanced position in housing but there was no man on the Royal Commission on Housing who took a more advanced position than he did. It needs to be said that the welfare of the agricultural labourer should have first place. The hon. and gallant Gentleman spoke of the old squire who built houses for his men first and then thought of his cattle. I do not know much about the old squire, but I will read two extracts to show what the new squire is doing. Dr. Dawson, the medical officer of Galloway, said before the Royal Commission:
The cot houses are about the last thing that are attended to by some proprietors.
We desire this to be the first thing. The county sanitary inspector of Kirkcudbright said:
I could take you to farms where hundreds of pounds have been spent on the steading, and not one penny on the cottages.
We want a higher standard of living for the agricultural labourer all round. Housing has never been an economic proposition, because the farm servant has had so unworthy a wage. That is true in England, as in Scotland. We wish to put him in a better economic position. One of the witnesses before the Commission said that, after all, you do not need
to give a house of more than a couple of rooms to a farm servant, because he has so little furniture. That gives cause for thought why they have so little furniture, and I appeal to hon. Members opposite to be true to their own assertions in their White Paper on agricultural policy in which they said:
That it should furnish a basis of life and a reasonable livelihood to the greater number of people.
We heard the other clay that the franchise should be based on the broadest possible foundation. We should seek the broadest possible basis of comfort, and equal comfort, in agricultural areas for all sections of the community. The nation which will make it its first principle to give a worthy standard of living to its agricultural labourers is the only nation that will ever build up a prosperous agriculture or a prosperous commerce in the country.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. HURD: When the hon. Gentleman says that we want to do all that we can to raise the standard of the agricultural labourer, he has the sympathy of every section of the House, and we should all be glad if the Motion enabled us to bring into action that spirit, because the question of housing, especially in the rural areas, need not become a matter of division between the two parties at all. We are approaching this question to-day in a spirit of disappointment. I am sure that, when my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, rises to speak, he will say that he and the Minister are disappointed with the comparatively small extent to which this Act has been brought into force. When the Act was before the House, we thought that it would prove a useful means of filling up a gap. The council houses had gone forward at a great and useful pace, and had provided for those who could pay a rental of 6s. and 8s. and upwards a week, but there remained this serious gap, and to only a small extent had the needs of the agricultural labourer been met. We thought that this Act would prove the means of filling that gap. The figures given by my hon. Friend show that that gap has not so far been filled. We have made some progress, but it is very small.
In my county of Wiltshire 41 applications have been made and only 17 have been put on the list for grants, and the rest have been refused. I am sorry to say that, even when Members of Parliament
in the various divisions of Wiltshire, have applied to the county council for the reason why the refusals have been made, the county council have replied that it cannot give an answer.
I should have thought a body like a county council would have felt it to be its duty to give information to Members of Parliament who were seeking to know why applications have been refused, especially when those Members have taken the trouble to find out for themselves whether there seemed to be a prima facie case for the acceptance rather than for the refusal of the application. Parliament casts this duty upon the county councils, and we shall serve a useful purpose if we ask ourselves why that duty has not been more effectually carried out. I think there is a good deal in what my hon. and gallant Friend said regarding the rates. There has been some general fear that this Act might add to the burden of the rates. Undoubtedly it does impose a burden, but the area over which the rate is spread is so large and the expenditure is so comparatively small that the addition to the rates is absolutely negligible, and there is no real cause for uneasiness on that account.
The second reason, and one which has more to do with the hesitation about using the Act, is that there is a feeling—certainly this is the case in my part of England—that it is not right to subsidise the well-to-do—that is the phrase. It is felt that landlords themselves ought to do the work in respect of which this Act grants a subsidy. I have here a letter which the Minister of Health has addressed to my own county council on this very point. They took the line that in considering applications they ought to use discrimination between those who could, and of their own means, and those who could not, adopt the Act. The Minister said:
The Minister is of opinion that no such test ought to be imposed under the Act, the benefits of which go to the tenants rather than to the landlords.
Then he refers to certain paragraphs in his circular of January, 1028, after which this sentence occurs:
While the Minister does not propose to question the decision of the local authority on any individual applications, he thinks it only right to acquaint them with his view as to the methods which should be adopted in investigating such applications,
and he has no doubt the county council, sharing his desire that the fullest advantage should be taken of the Act for the improvement of agricultural housing, will co-operate in administering the Act on the lines already clearly indicated.
I shall be glad if the Minister will tell us what sort of response has been made by county councils to that latest move on his part. To look at this matter without bias and quite fairly, it must be admitted that the return to the owner is so poor that this must be reckoned as one of the causes why there have been so few applications. The House is quite familiar with the terms—3 per cent. interest and a limitation of the rent to the 3s. basis, say. Figuring it out, hon. Members will see that there is nothing in it for the owner, except as being an improvement of the amenities of his estate. But the point remains that we want the cottages, and want them badly in many areas, and I hope that as the Act passes into its second year we may find that the county councils will become more active. They are bodies which naturally move slowly, meeting only quarterly, and you cannot expect to find an express machine in a county council, at any rate you do not get it.
I come to the third reason, the chief reason, I think, why this Act has worked so slowly. It is because the Ministry have placed the operation of the Act in the wrong hands. There are some 600 rural district councils in England as against something like 60 county councils. If you have 600 propagandists for an Act you are far more likely to get that Act operated than if you have only 60. The rural district councils are the housing authorities, and I say unhesitatingly that in the rural areas the rural district councils have, in the main, done their housing work remarkably well. They are the authorities in the locality, they know the needs of each village and they can indicate cottage after cottage which is worth reconditioning and other buildings which can be converted into homes for agricultural labourers. Not only do they know the whole circumstances, but they have their officers on the spot who can go to the owner, and say: "Your two cottages in this village are on the medical officer's list. They will be condemned so can find alternative accommodation We do not want to take strong measures, and we think those cottages ought to come under this rural
housing Act. Why do not you bring them under it?" If you had such direct means of access, and information were conveyed to owners in that way, I believe many more applications would be filed than is the case now.
This is the easiest means of helping the rural district councils to solve their housing problems. It is far less expensive than putting up new cottages, because with present-day costs new cottages cannot be provided at a rental which agricultural labourers can pay, whereas reconditioned cottages would be available at the same rental, or but little more, than the labourers pay now. Moreover, it is one of the best means of dealing with the problem of the tied cottage. One of the main difficulties is that if an agricultural worker leaves his job there is no alternative cottage for him to go to, and if by reason of an increase in the number of cottages available there was such alternative accommodation the tied cottage problem would lose a great deal of its present acuteness. I hope the Ministry will see their way to reconsider the question of the authority which is to operate this Act.
I regret very much the absence to-day of the Minister of Health, because I know how keenly he feels on this subject. The rural housing committee of this House has sent repeated deputations to him, and he has always shown himself to be singularly well posted in the facts, and very desirous of helping forward a solution of this question. When this Bill was before the House we implored him to put the working of it into the hands of those who are at present the housing authorities in the rural areas and were keenest to bring it into fullest operation. Unfortunately, this is what happened. The Minister was good enough, at our instance, to put in a Clause by which rural district councils were permitted to make applications to be the authority under the Act up to 31st March of the year of the Act's operation. But when applications came in from the rural district councils, what did the Minister do? He did not consider those applications on their merits, but used them as a lever to impel county councils to put forward schemes. In the operation of this Act he proved that he was working upon the county council policy, and I can quite understand it, because it is much easier
to carry on administration where you have only 60 authorities to deal with than where you have something like 500 or 600.
After all, what is the purpose of municipal government in this country? The main purpose of Parliament in extending municipal government was to develop the spirit of local patriotism amongst the largest possible number of the community. We all know the good service which is rendered by these rural district councillors and other councillors, and it is discouraging to them when a duty which in other Acts has been thrown upon them is, in this instance, taken away from them, because this reconditioning of cottages is a work which they are particularly well fitted to carry out. I think even now that it would be well if the Minister were to reconsider this matter. The Parliamentary Secretary will perhaps recollect that when the Minister put in the Clause with reference to the date of 31st March he also inserted words of his own. The Clause states that the Minister is to have power to hand over the working of the Act to a rural district council "if special circumstances should arise,"—or some such words. I wish that in cases where the county council has proved itself unable or unwilling to work the Act the Minister would consider whether special circumstances have not arisen which entitle him to say, "In this area arc cottages which need reconditioning the rural district council did originally make application to work the Act; I will now hand the working of that Act over to them in that area."
The Motion before the House refers to the "improvement" of housing accommodation. The hon. and gallant Member for Newbury (Brigadier-General Brown) spoke of the work of the Council for the Preservation of Rural England I had the pleasure of introducing a deputation from the council to the Minister of Health some little time ago, and he was most sympathetic in his reception of the proposals which were put before him with a view to providing modern accommodation for agricultural workers without destroying the architectural beauties of our villages. I would very much like to know whether the Minister is following up the developments of that work? Voluntary panels composed of professional
men and of laymen have now been set up to advise local authorities. Architects and high authorities, men whose names are familiar to everyone in this House, have voluntarily given their services as members of these panels. There is a central panel and local panels The proposal is that when local authorities contemplate reconditioning a cottage, or turning any building into cottages for the purpose of providing homes for agricultural labourers, that that scheme should be put before this voluntary advisory council. They will be able to advise the district council or the county council of any alteration which they think would keep the scheme in harmony with the existing amenities of the village and preserve any architectural beauties which the village already enjoys.
After all, the villages of England are one of our greatest possessions. I have just come back from the British West Indies. Their civilisation is about as old as ours, going back to the Elizabethan age, but their villages are an appalling spectacle—shacks; and much the same applies to large districts in Canada. In this country we have a unique possession in our villages, and we ought to welcome the voluntary assistance which these great architects are anxious to give in order to preserve the picturesque character of those villages. I hope the Minister will develop his sympathetic attitude towards this movement and encourage the panel to get to work, and if he can encourage the county councils, and the rural district councils, where they are the operating authority, to seek the advice of these panels, it will be so much the better. After all, the local authority retains the last word on the particular schemes. Perhaps the Minister would not go as far as I would go, but I would lay down the principle that where Parliament grants a subsidy for houses or the reconditioning of cottages, it should be made a condition that the scheme should be submitted to some such advisory panel as this, that they might give their view as to how far it would fit in with the village as we should all like it to be. I repeat that the local authority would still retain the final word. I am glad to say that the Central Committee is now bringing the panel into immediate existence. I have received the following communication from the
Council for the Preservation of Rural England:
It is now the intention of the Council for the Preservation of Rural England to invite those of its constituent bodies likely to be able to assist, such as the National Federation of Women's Institutes, the Rural Community Councils, and the various local preservation societies affiliated to it, to circulate their members and branches with a view to giving greater publicity to the terms and advantages offered by the Act, and obtaining for the panels information in regard to houses which may be reconditioned as a result of its provisions.
I think the importance of that communication will appeal to the House. It is extremely likely that we shall get through such institutions as the women's institute expressions of public opinion of a more vigorous kind in favour of the reconditioning of cottages. It is to public opinion that we must appeal. If in 1926 the rural district councils had been made the authority to deal with housing, I think they would have used their influence to carry out the reconditioning of country cottages. As a rule, the county councils are very remote bodies so far as the rural districts are concerned, and the central authority is often far away. I hope that public opinion will be brought more forcibly to bear upon this problem, and that we shall see in the near future a large accession to the number of cottages in our country villages.

Mr. SMITH-CARINGTON: I fully appreciate the immense amount which has been done in the rural districts, and I congratulate the Minister of Health and the Ministry upon the enthusiasm they have shown in coping with this great housing problem. It seems to me remarkable that such a great success should have been achieved in the rural districts when we consider the practical difficulties in the way of getting houses built in agricultural villages, because builders as a rule prefer the larger contracts which they obtain in the towns. It was no attraction to those builders to have the offer of a contract for building one or two pairs of cottages in some remote village. The same difficulty, in a slightly different form, has occurred in the delivery of materials. I would also like to draw attention to the very disastrous result which followed the announcement that a reduction of the subsidy would take place as from October last. The immediate effect of that announcement was
a great acceleration of house building in the urban districts. The building of large blocks of houses was hurried on so as to secure as much of the full rate of subsidy as possible, and that rush of building in the towns meant a certain diminution in the country districts where the building material was not forthcoming, and the few houses under construction in the country villages at that time were almost put into abeyance.
The result was very discouraging to those who lost the subsidy, more especially in the case of private individuals and the local councils. Private individuals who had budgeted in the belief that they were going to get the full subsidy found that they were deprived of a portion of it. The local councils in the same way were budgeting upon a small rateable value, and they had an experience which was rather discouraging for a future occasion. Yesterday, in answer to a question, the Minister of Health was good enough to inform me that in strictly agricultural parishes it was not possible to give statistics of the results under the 1919 and 1923 Housing Acts. With regard to 1924, the statistics of agricultural parishes have been kept separately and the figure given shows the insignificant number of 9,735 new houses in all the agricultural parishes.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: Is the hon. Member referring to rural parishes or to agricultural parishes under the Act?

Mr. SMITH-CARINGTON: I am referring to agricultural parishes under the Act. Of the total number of new houses which have been built an outside estimate would be only about 2 per cent. in the agricultural parishes. I think that is a very small addition as far as new houses are concerned. We have to consider not only those which have been demolished but also the far greater number which have been occupied, not by rural workers, but by townsfolk and others as week-end cottages and so forth. If you balance all these facts together, they tend to show that the housing problem has not been in any way coped with, and they have not produced any net gain in the number of cottages in the parishes to which I have referred.
I notice that an hon. Member is going to raise the question of tied houses, and I think that will emphasise the desire
we have to see more houses built in our agricultural parishes. Of course, the tied cottage question would have no significance whatever if we had an abundance of alternative accommodation. Taking things as they are, I think it is just as well that we should face the facts with regard to tied cottages. The first point I would like to urge is that the tied cottage is really a necessary part of the equipment of a farm or an estate, and it was built for that particular purpose. If the building of such a cottage was not necessary, as an economic proposition it would never have been built. If any Measure is passed which tends to make it impossible in the future for owners to have the same control of their cottages as they have had in the past, then I think the immediate effect will be to add to the trouble, because no fresh cottages of that kind will be built. There is a little misapprehension about those cottages. It is often spoken of as a great hardship when the man occupying one of those cottages has to leave in order to take up some other employment. I do not deny that there may be cases of that kind, but my experience is that the farmer, as a rule, is a good employer, and I am certain that at the present time, when skilled labour upon the farm is difficult to get, no one would be more reluctant than the farmer to give notice to a good worker. There may be occasional cases of rather capricious action, but very often in cases where that kind of thing has been urged a full investigation of the facts shows that there were faults on both sides.
These tied cottages on farms, as a rule, are not occupied by the agricultural workers who are receiving the minimum wage, but they are generally occupied by the more skilled workers who get a somewhat higher wage. The purpose of those cottages is to house horsemen, stockmen, shepherds, and those in charge of animals, and the necessities of their calling require that they should be close to their work, more particularly at certain seasons of the year. When one of these workers leaves the employment of a particular farmer, it is necessary that his successor should occupy the same house to enable him to take over and carry out efficiently the duties. I do not wish to be unsympathetic, and I know that cases
of hardship arise on account of these workers having to give up their cottages. I am afraid, however, that such cases arise in all walks of life, and I believe that there is a great deal of truth in the old saying that "hard cases make bad law." It is just as much a hardship to the successor of a man employed on a farm not to be able to get possession of the cottage of the man he succeeds, as it is for the predecessor of that man to have to give up his cottage.
I am afraid that the depression in agriculture and the impoverishment of the landowners has played sad havoc with the question of housing in the rural districts. Many owners cannot afford to build fresh cottages, and we find that local authorities, knowing what a burden the rates have already become feel very shy about imposing fresh housing schemes upon the neighbourhood It seems to me that if some fairy godfather could, within the next few weeks, cause a little bit more money to circulate on the countryside in the form of grants in reduction of the rates, then we might see the way somewhat eased for dealing with this great problem. I ask the Minister of Health to stimulate the solution of this question by urging upon local authorities to function with the powers they already possess in order to get more new houses built, and above all, to recondition many of the older houses which we now find upon the countryside.

Mr. ARTHUR GREENWOOD: An occasion like this offers opportunities for the expression of views on some question on which most people will agree, and the pious Resolution which has been put down by the hon. and gallant Member for Berwick and Haddington (Colonel Crook-shank) is like a general admonition to everyone of us to be good. With the Resolution I have no quarrel, though I feel that it could well be improved by the addition of the words of the Amendment which I understand is presently to be moved. We have become accustomed on this side of the House to the Conservative party regarding England rather as the estate of a particular party, and we are aware, on the statements of many hon. Members opposite, that agriculture and the countryside provide the backbone of the Conservative party. In view of that, one would have thought that a rather
stronger Resolution might well have been put on the Paper, and something more definite suggested.
The housing problem, as everyone in all quarters of the House is now agreed, is one of fundamental importance. It is difficult enough to solve in the towns; it is infinitely more difficult to solve in rural areas. There, conditions in very many villages are too appalling for words, and we are in a vicious circle. The old semi-feudal system, whereby the farmer or the landowner provided his employés with cottages, enabled him to pay those people insignificant wages, and the insignificant wages came to be too small to enable them to pay rents for new cottages. That unfortunate vicious circle has never been broken. I think it is fair, however, to remind the, House that the first step that was taken in Great Britain to deal specially with the problem of rural housing was taken by the Government of 1924; and when the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Smith Carington) speaks of 9,000 houses as being insignificant, I would point out to him that that is a tremendously large number compared with the number of houses that have been reconditioned under the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1926. It is at least creditable that, on the 1st February of this year, in agricultural parishes, and therefore in really rural areas, well over 9,000 houses had been completed under the Act of 1924, and that nearly 10,000 families in really rural areas are to that extent better off, and are infinitely better off than they would be at the present rate of improvement under the Act of 1926.
I am sorry that the Minister of Health is not here. I should have liked to see him here to listen to the explanations of his supporters as to why the Housing (Rural Workers) Act has proved such an utter fiasco. Unfortunately, this is not the only fiasco of the right hon. Gentleman. It does not seem so very long ago that he was going to rejuvenate the countryside and the urban areas by an enormous policy of steel houses. He had to admit that that policy was an utter failure. His next effort to deal with the housing problem, which has had and is having the most unfortunate reactions in the rural areas, was his decision to reduce the subsidy. The effect of that is already apparent, and I assume that the effect in the rural areas will be pretty much
the effect in the country as a whole. On the 1st March, 1927, in England and Wales, there were under construction, under the Acts of 1923 and 1924, nearly 103,000 houses. On the 1st March, 1928, under the operation of the reduced subsidy, there were under construction 51,000 houses. In other words, at the moment, the actual. building programme that is going on in the country is one-half of what it was a year ago. That means that in the rural areas to-day only half the number of houses are being built that were being built a year ago; and if one separates them out—

Sir H. CAUTLEY: Has the hon. Gentleman any figures to show that? I should have said that it was very different, looking at the number of houses that are going up, certainly in the South of England.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I am making an assumption, which was not challenged. No one can prove this, but I make it as a fair assumption——

Sir H. CAUTLEY: If it relates to urban houses, I agree.

Mr. GREENWOOD: My assumption is that the reduction which is taking place in building to-day is taking place in the countryside as well as in the towns, and I think it is a perfectly fair assumption, because, if houses cannot be built in the countryside with the old subsidy—and building has certainly lagged behind—then I am sure it will not be possible to build them with the new reduced subsidy, and one effect of the reduced subsidy is bound to be a restricted amount of building in the rural areas.
The third mistake and the third failure of the Minister of Health is the Housing (Rural Workers) Act. Figures have been quoted to-day as to how much has been achieved by this Measure. We remember with what high hopes the Government set out upon this Bill. Some of us on this side of the House who opposed it—I myself moved its rejection on Second Reading and on Third Reading—were held up to opprobrium as standing in the way of a great housing movement which was going to do an enormous amount to restore the prosperity of the countryside. I remember that, at the time of the Second Reading Debate, in the early
days of August, 1926, even the advent of holidays did not take the minds of hon. Members opposite off the possibilities of this great Measure, and, although I do not think that the Minister of Health used really extravagant language about it, compared with that of his supporters, there is no doubt that the impression created in this House, and probably outside the House also, was that, as the result of the operation of this Measure, an enormous impetus was to be given to the re-housing of the people. The Minister s own words during the Second Reading Debate are worth recalling. He said:
I do not put it forward as a startling or a revolutionary proposal, but I do think it is a practicable and serviceable proposition, which will do, in a short time, more than has hitherto been done to provide better accommodation for the agricultural worker."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd August, 1927; col. 2847; Vol. 198.]
The very last words which were spoken in this House on that Bill were the words of the right hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary in closing the Debate on the Third Reading, when he said:
When this Bill goes to the Statute Book and, as I believe will be the case, very considerable additional housing accommodation at reasonable rents for the agricultural labourers of this country is provided, houses for people who need them very much, hon. Members opposite must not complain if' we do not refrain from pointing out the conduct of the Labour party in connection with this Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th December, 1926; cols. 1824–6, Vol. 200.]
I think we might now ask about the conduct of the Government. At the beginning of this year, this Bill was so dead that the Minister felt called upon to issue a circular of appeal to the local authorities in rural areas, in which he then admitted, in spite of the brave words spoken by him and the Parliamentary Secretary when the Bill was going through the House, that
The amount of work which has so far been put in hand under the Act is comparatively small.
Although the building of nearly 10,000 houses in rural areas under the Wheatley Act is not a solution of the problem of rural housing, it is, at any rate, a contribution which dwarfs into insignificance the accomplishments under the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1926, of which, in England and Wales, at the end of last year, the total harvest was 89 dwellings
in which improvements were being made. In Scotland, at the same date, 62 houses had been improved, and a further 160 were in course of improvement. By that time the Bill had run a quarter of its course. Let us assume, if you like, that in that first quarter it could not expect to yield its fullest possible results. Let us suppose, if you like, that in the next 15 months, and the 15 months after that, and in the last 15 months of the five years in which it operates, there is a progressive increase in the amount of improvement that takes place in rural dwellings under the Act. What is it going to mean at the end? Suppose that in each 15 months you double the amount of work accomplished in the preceding 15 months; at the end of that von will not have improved as many houses as will outnumber the new houses that have been erected already in agricultural parishes under the Act of 1924. In other words, the crop is bound to be a very small one.
I do not believe that the problem of rural housing can ever be solved by leaving it alone. I think it is quite clear that the level of wages in agriculture, and the difficulties of the agricultural industry, make it impossible to hope that there will be any very large amount of building unless such building is aided out of public funds. I am not against the improvement of existing houses; I said that 18 months and more ago, when the Housing (Rural Workers) Bill was before the House. My objection is broadly this, that the Government are prepared to give approval to the expenditure of £100 of public money on the mere improvement of a house, as against a grant of £50 payable for a new house under the Housing Act of 1923. I think that those figures are not comparable. For the nation, whether through the State or through the local authorities, to expend twice as much on the improvement and adaptation of old cottages as it gives for the building of a new house, with a much longer life, so far from being economical, is a waste of public money, more particularly as that expenditure, while it is incurred out of public funds, passes into the hands of private owners of property. I am convinced that, although the Minister of Health is desirous of reducing the general subsidy still further, and of bringing the subsidy for new houses to an end as soon as possible, it will be a
long time before he will dare to do that in the case of the rural areas. The truth is that greater headway has been made in the towns than in the country districts. That, I think, is admitted. The figures given for building in rural district council areas tell us nothing whatever, as hon. Members know, about the real problem of rural housing, because so many of these houses built in rural district council areas are in fact on the edge of urban district areas. Everyone knows that the amount of house building that has been carried out in the rural areas is relatively less than in the urban and semi-urbanised areas.
I spoke against the reduction of the subsidy last year and will speak about it when it comes on again, but, whatever may be said for the subsidy for urban houses, I do not believe there is the remotest possibility of bringing rural housing up to the new and rising level of urban housing except with the assistance of public money, and, although I think everything should be done to improve existing rural cottages and to prevent the countryside being besmirched with the buildings which are now so common a feature, it means the expenditure of public money on a generous scale and in such a way as to provide cottages that are in harmony with the surroundings. It will not be an immediate business proposition in the sense that a return will be immediately forthcoming. Agricultural wages are too low to permit of anything like economic rents being paid under existing circumstances, but the wise expenditure of public money on the improvement of housing in rural areas will not only be an economic advantage reflected in the efficiency of the agricultural worker, but will do an enormous lot to raise the standard of health of the rural population, because it is a very disconcerting fact that, whilst the standard of health of the urban child has been rising in recent years, there is no comparable improvement in the health of the rural child. That is very largely a question of housing, and if, by this wise expenditure of public money, we do not reap any immediate return, I feel convinced that in the added efficiency of the agricultural worker, in the improvement in the lot of the agricultural workers' wife and in the improved standard of health of the
rising population of the countryside, that should provide a sufficient return for the expenditure of money by the State and by local authorities.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): I have to congratulate my two hon. Friends on bringing forward this Motion. In the first place, they have been able to put on the Paper a Motion of which the hon. Gentleman opposite does not think it his duty to seek the rejection, and, secondly, they have called attention to a very urgent matter which is well worthy the attention of the House of Commons at this time. The problem of housing in the rural districts is a very difficult one and is entirely different from that presented by urban housing. The shortage of housing accommodation in the rural areas is not, as it is in the urban areas, a legacy of the War, because for decades before the War there was stagnation in house building for the workers in rural areas. Private enterprise, I agree, has not been able to operate, chiefly owing to the fact that the customary low rents obtainable for housing in the countryside are considerably below an economic figure. In large centres of population the local authorities can, of course, meet the situation, when it has not been done by private enterprise, by acquiring large sites which lend themselves to a comprehensive scheme of development. In rural areas it is generally a question of erecting a few houses on scattered sites, and, while in the first place in urban areas large schemes generally result in an economy of costs, in scattered rural areas, very often far removed from a railway, they do not lend themselves to such rapid and economical development. Very often the water supply and drainage are very expensive items indeed.
That is the problem that confronts the House to-day and has confronted successive Governments. I have no doubt the hon. Gentleman desired to give a fair presentment of the case as he saw it, though we have had some statements which are not perfectly accurate. There is, in the first place, operating in connection with rural housing the 1924 Act, which was designed, as I understand it, by giving a higher subsidy, to meet the higher costs that were necessary. I am not very clear whether the hon. Gentleman
thinks we must rest on the 1924 Act or whether he has any other solution to put before the country on behalf of the Labour party. The subsidy under that Act is a very liberal one. The State contribution is an annual one of £11 per house for 40 years, as compared with £7 10s. per house in other areas, and the Exchequer subsidy, plus the contribution by local authorities, is equivalent to a capital sum of no less than £253 on a five per cent. basis.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: The tenants cannot afford to pay. That is the reason.

Sir K. WOOD: I was going to make that observation. Somewhat severe criticism was made by the hon. Gentleman opposite of the fact that the Minister of Health, with the sanction of the House, has taken steps to cut the housing subsidy. I do not know whether his solution of the housing problem, that the higher the subsidy the country pays the more expeditious——

Mr. GREENWOOD: It is clear from the figures that a reduced subsidy means fewer houses.

Sir K. WOOD: We will come to that in a moment. I want to put the proposition first. Is it the contention of the hon. Gentleman that the bigger we make the subsidy the more progress we are going to make with houses? I remember full well when we were paying the highest amount of subsidy, in the days when Dr. Addison was Minister of Health, the cost of housing went sky high. Houses which before the War cost £250 or £300 were actually costing the nation, the local authorities and the citizens of the country anything between £1,200 and £1,300. Do hon. Members want us to go back to those days? One of the greatest needs of the moment—this applies equally to the rural and the urban housing problems—is to have houses erected at such a cost that they can be let at rents that the lower-paid workers can afford to pay. I do not know whether it is suggested that there is any other way of getting lower rents than by a reduction of the subsidy, and I should have thought the events that have occurred since the reduction of the subsidy at any rate demonstrate that aspect of the question and show that something has been done, because I find in the period of 12 months
since the subsidy reduction, the prices of non-parlour houses included in contracts made by rural district councils have fallen by some £60 per house. I should have thought that certainly was a step in the right direction and should not be the subject of complaint. It should surely be a matter of congratulation to everyone who is interested in getting lower housing costs and lower rents.

Mr. HURD: In what period was that reduction made?

Sir K. WOOD: In the twelve months since the subsidy was cut down.

Mr. GREENWOOD: You mean twelve months after the announcement.

Sir K. WOOD: Yes. Then the hon. Gentleman said that the rate of house building has come down by a half. I do not know where he got his figures. At any rate, it is obvious to anyone who has studied housing progress that what happened in the few months before the subsidy was finally cut down was a great rush by builders to obtain the full subsidy. The number of houses built was as great as the number built in the twelve months before the War. It is very unfair when a great effort of that kind was made to say: "You are not building at the same rate as in that period," when the builders were naturally anxious to get the full subsidy.

Mr. GREENWOOD: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the rate of building in the first two months of this year was less than that of the first two months of 1926, when no announcement had been made?

6.0 p.m.

Sir K. WOOD: The hon. Gentleman is indulging in the habit of pulling up the plant to see how it is growing. I invite him to wait a little and see the result of our efforts at the end of the twelve months. Obviously after the reduction of the subsidy the local authorities have been arranging their plans, and, human nature being what it is, they are probably waiting a little too long to see whether prices will fall still further. I should have thought that we might have had a word of praise from the hon. Gentleman in view of the fact that the rate of house building is at the highest in its history and that he would agree, whatever Government happened to be in power, it would be a matter of some
slight congratulation to my right hon. Friend, who has put such great work into it. At any rate, so far as rural housing is concerned, we cannot complain with regard to the operation of the 1924 Act. I very well remember the speeches that were made in this House when this,
Government came into power. Hon. Members said "Oh, this Government is not going to do the fair thing by the 1924 Act. Some base design is on foot, and this Act is going to be tripped up in some way and put on one side."
No one who desires to speak fairly can say that we have not given a fair opportunity to the 1924 Act. It has had a very fair opportunity in the rural areas. As far as my right hon. Friend and his Department are concerned, and as at present advised, they have no intention of impeding that Act. We hope—quite contrary to the hon. Gentleman's views about rural housing, to which I will refer in a moment—that as many houses as possible will be built under the Wheatley Act either in rural or any other areas. We do not grudge hon. Gentlemen opposite any credit they may have owing to the fact that houses are being built under that Act. Perhaps it may surprise them that houses have been built under that Act, but it is so, and we do not grudge the fact that it has been so. If there were twice as many houses built under the Wheatley Act in rural areas than have been built, I should be twice as happy as I am now, because I am anxious to see, regardless of the particular Act of Parliament under which the houses are built, that the people of this country get the benefit of better housing accommodation. We have the Housing Act of 1924 in operation, and, as far as my right hon. Friend and myself are concerned, we are doing our best to make the greatest advance that is possible under it.
There is another aspect in connection with this matter to which I would like to refer this afternoon. It is perfectly true to say, when you give the figure of the houses completed in the rural districts, that it is not the same as giving details of the number of houses erected in agricultural parishes, but it is a figure which ought to be taken into account. It gives some proof of the housing situation. It is a remarkable thing that, of
the total of 1,065,000 houses completed in England and Wales since the Armistice, something like 278,000 of them, or about 26 per cent., have been completed in rural districts. Let us have that figure placed on the records of this House, for, after all that we have heard from the hon. Gentleman this afternoon, one might think that very little progress in housing had been made. It is necessary that we should know these figures, and realise that they represent the biggest housing effort that has ever been made not only in this country but in any other country in the world. One of the most excellent features of this is—and I commend it to hon. Gentlemen opposite who have complained about the cutting down of the subsidy—that of the 278,000 houses which have been erected in rural districts, something like 108,000 have been built without any State assistance at all. That, at any rate, shows that something has been done. Why hon. Gentlemen opposite should complain of that I do not know. I should have thought that it would have been regarded as a satisfactory state of affairs when the State was able to save money in this way. I cannot conceive how anyone can have an idea that the housing problem is going to be solved by subsidies. Subsidies are just as vicious for the building trade as they are for any other trade.
Let me answer another question. It was asked, I think by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Barr). He said that when the Housing (Rural Workers) Bill was introduced the Minister of Health and I claimed that there would be an indirect advantage, apart from the actual number of houses erected and put into proper condition, and that a very large number of houses would be repaired in other ways. I am very glad to be able to give him the figures, because, in surveying what has been done in the rural areas, I can say that very good and useful work has been done by the rural district councils, partly in co-operation with the owners.
The latest report and figures are for the year 1926. I find—and this will, at any rate, show the work that authorities are doing—that in 1926 there were 147,870 houses inspected. That was the first thing that was done. That is not a small amount of work. Of this number, it is very interesting to find, there were 3,021
houses found to be unfit for habitation. The number of houses found not reasonably fit for habitation was 31,432. Then action was taken. Twenty-nine thousand and thirteen houses were rendered fit in consequence of the informal action of the rural district councils. This was a considerable step towards meeting the housing situation in rural districts. This was done by agreement with the owners, and I am glad to think that the first object of the authorities is, if possible, to come to arrangements with the owners by calling their attention to the matter and getting the work done. The work in respect of these 29,013 houses was done without having to take any further steps whatever.

Mr. MacLAREN: Would the right hon. Gentleman suggest that the rents were increased after the improvements were made?

Sir K. WOOD: We are not discussing that matter now. I shall be glad to discuss it with the hon. Member on some future occasion but not now. The houses which were rendered fit in consequence of action under statutory powers—that means that the district council took steps in the matter—accounted for another 17,298 houses, so that the number of houses found during the year to be unfit or not reasonably fit was about 34,000, while the number of houses that were rendered fit was over 46,000. That is a very considerable step. Anyone who knows the discomfort, and the danger to health of living in an unsatisfactory cottage or house must value the considerable housing work which has been done in rural areas in this particular connection. When we survey the field, as we are entitled to do on a Motion of this kind, I say that that is a very considerable contribution and that it ought to he remembered by every Member in this House.
I now come to the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, regarding which a certain amount of criticism has been made in various parts of the House this afternoon. The first thing that we have always said in connection with that Act is that it is supplementary to the effort which is being made in many directions to erect new houses. No one contends that the provisions of the Housing (Rural Workers)
Act ought to take the place of other provisions for the erection of new cottages or houses in the countryside. It was put forward as a method of supplementing the existing operations, and, if possible, to meet a want which, I think, every observer of housing in rural districts must admit. In other words, it was to provide a liberal subsidy for the reconditioning of old cottages.

Mr. GREENWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept this statement which he made before, that it would make a very considerable addition to housing?

Sir K. WOOD: Yes, but that is certainly not dealing with the point that I desire to make at the moment. I will endeavour to face that statement of mine in a moment. I will again state my point, because I am afraid I have not been able to make myself sufficiently clear to the hon. Gentleman. My point is, that it has never been intended that the Housing (Rural Workers) Act should substitute all efforts in connection with new building. It was a supplementary line of approach to the betterment of rural housing conditions, and I think that every one will agree that many of these houses can undoubtedly be given a new lease of life and be converted into healthy and comfortable homes. When we made the proposal we were opposed by the hon. Gentleman opposite who has taken some pride in the fact that he moved the rejection of that particular Bill. I hope he takes equal pride in the fact that he moved the rejection of the 1923 Bill, which has accounted for the building of a larger number of houses than has ever been built in the same period in the history of this country. The hon. Gentleman has moved the rejection of every Housing Bill that has been brought forward since the Conservative party has been in power, and he takes his chance as to whether his efforts are successful or not. This particular scheme was put forward with the object that I have stated, and I should have thought that it would have received the assistance, when it was understood, of hon. Gentlemen opposite. After all, they may have some particular objections to the finance of the scheme. They may say, as the hon. Gentleman said just now, that £100 was too much to spend on this particular effort, but, having been placed on the Statute Book and having been put into operation, one would have thought
that the Act would have received the support of hon. Gentlemen opposite even if only a single home were made better and more comfortable. However, we have not had their support.
I agree to a certain extent that during the first few months of the operation of this particular Measure, my right hon. Friend and myself would have been very glad to have seen much greater progress made. The latest figures we have are three months old. As hon. Gentlemen know, the authorities were specially circularised by my Department in January, and it is too early yet for us to be able to say—because we do not want to keep asking these authorities to be continually giving us figures—exactly what the result of that further effort on our part may be. I hope—I may be too sanguine—that we shall see some improvement in this connection. I should have thought that it was obviously the interests of all members sitting on county or district councils, whatever their political views might be, to make the very best of this particular Measure, and not try and impede it. I commend that suggestion to hon. Gentlemen sitting opposite at this particular moment. I want to emphasise that this is only a temporary Act of Parliament, and is only to be in operation for a certain period, and that unless advantage is taken of it within measureable time the benefits which the Act gives will no longer be available.
I agree with what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Hurd) as to some of the reasons why this Act has not operated more advantageously. The very arguments that were advanced by hon. Gentlemen opposite, that this particular Act would put private profits into the pockets of the landowners of the country, have proved utterly false. As a matter of fact, one of the reasons, in my judgment, why this Act perhaps has not operated as much as we should have liked is the fact that there was not sufficient inducement to the landowners of the country, and that they had to submit to conditions, which, perhaps, in some respect are onerous and rather difficult at the present time. Affairs do move rather slowly in the country, but we are still hopeful that as the merits of this particular Measure become more
widely known, greater progress will be made. We hope that everybody will help in their own particular way not only in urging the local authorities to act more quickly, but in getting people to make applications and to take advantage of the scheme. I do not want to criticise the action of any authority, whether it be a county council or a district council. What I am anxious to do from the point of view- of improving the housing conditions in the country, is to get more people to help. I do not wish to say anything in the way of criticism, but 1 do say that much more progress could be attained under this Act if there were more publicity in connection with it. If the landowners and others knew much more widely than they do the very considerable benefits that would follow from adopting the Act and the steps to be taken to obtain them, much more progress would be made.
I do not think it would be worth while to discuss the steps that we have taken for dealing with this matter in the Act of Parliament. In the great, majority of cases we have entrusted the work to the county councils. That step, which is provided for in the Statute, has been taken, and we must give the scheme some little time longer to run before we come to the question of altering a fundamental matter of this kind. I would like to give the House the exact position, because some hon. Members who are associated with me in the desire to see this Act work well feel that if other authorities had been entrusted with the work it would have proceeded more rapidly. The number of counties which have submitted schemes is 45, and the number of counties which have not submitted schemes is 16. In the case of 13 of these counties some or all of the district councils have been declared authorities under the Act, and the other three, Peterborough, Merioneth and Radnor are under the consideration of my Department. The number of councils in the county districts which have been declared authorities under the Act are, non-county boroughs 12, urban districts 17, rural districts 103, making a total of 132. We are still hopeful that progress will be made under this particular Act of Parliament, and we invite those who are opposed to us in regard to the Act to assist. As the hon. Member for
Motherwell indicated, whether we object to an Act of Parliament or not, when it is on the Statute Book and it gives better opportunities for the housing of the people, it is worth while to sink one's prejudices in order to further the better housing of the people.
Reference has been made to-day to the necessity of preserving the rural character of England, and our doing nothing to destroy some of the best features of our country scenery and life. I was glad to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes of the action which the Council for the Preservation of Rural England has taken and is taking in this matter. He knows the attitude and sympathy of my right hon. Friend and myself. We shall do all that we can to assist that council or any society in their efforts in this direction. We have no desire in connection with any of our housing efforts that the amenities of the countryside should be destroyed or disfigured in any way. Sometimes I have regretted, in going up and clown the country, to see some of the erections which are called houses which have been put up. I hope that we shall more and more, without in any way retarding our housing efforts, not be unmindful of the necessity of doing all that we can to preserve the best features of our rural scenery.
I do not desire to say anything about the Amendment which will be moved later. As far as housing generally is concerned, and as far as the progress in rural districts is concerned, we would like to see more work done. The Government have no intention other than to pursue the policy, which has not been unsuccessful, of doing all we can to promote the interests of rural people. I agree with the statement made by one of my hon. Friends that to a great extent the future of agriculture depends on good housing, and in helping to get better rural housing we are helping agriculture. As far as my Department is concerned and as far as my right hon. Friend and myself are concerned we desire to see further progress made, but we do not feel that we need be ashamed in regard to our housing efforts, which have not been exceeded by any Government which has been in power in recent years.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, at the end of the Question, to add the words:
and in particular to encourage local authorities to make such provision as will free agricultural labourers from the tyranny of the tied-house system.
Before dealing with the specific question contained in the Amendment I would like to make a few observations in reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary. He said that the Government are still hopeful, and it seems to me that that is the only thing that the rural workers can expect from his speech. He has reviewed the housing conditions and the improvements that have been made since 1919, but so far from getting any real indication that any definite effort is to be made to try to overtake the arrears in purely rural areas, little or nothing has been said, except what may or may not happen as a result of the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1926. He suggested that the Addison scheme was a typical example of what not to do. He said that houses which previous to the War could have been built for £250 went soaring up to £1,200 or £1,300 because of the subsidies given in the Housing Act of 1919. Surely, the right hon. Gentleman must know that the only reason why that took place was because there was no Profiteering Act in existence at the moment. Private enterprise in various forms took advantage of the national need and sent the prices of houses up to the highest possible point, and when the Addison scheme broke down we found just what we find to-day as a result of the decrease in the subsidy.
What has been the result? The right hon. Gentleman is very pleased. He tells us that the cost of building houses has fallen, I think he said by £60 a house, and that we ought to feel very grateful. He ought to know that there is another side to the balance sheet, and that as a result of the slowing down of housing we have 118,000 building operatives and labourers unemployed requiring £120,000 per week unemployment pay to be given for no service rendered. Approximately, £6,000,000 per annum has to be paid for unemployment benefits and not a single house will be built as a result of that payment. Does it not seem rather unsound economics that we
should take a step in a direction which of necessity must incur colossal expense and no real results are forthcoming? Yet the right hon. Gentleman expects us to be grateful because the cost of housing for the moment happens to have fallen. In 1928, as in 1922, the net result of the policy of the Government is that there is a definite slowing down in the building of houses, both in urban and rural areas.
The right hon. Gentleman stated that there had been stagnation in rural areas for many generations. In rural areas alone there was the need before the War of anything up to 100,000 houses. The right hon. Gentleman tells us that out of the more than 1,000,000 houses which have been erected since the War, 10,000 are occupied by agricultural labourers. With the continuous dilapidation which goes on, notwithstanding the action of rural district councils, the need of houses in purely rural areas must he greater to-day than before the War; yet nothing has emerged from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman that would give any sort of comfort to the Mover and Seconder or the supporters of this Amendment, who really do desire to see more houses erected for agricultural labourers in various parts of the country. The right hon. Gentleman tells us how many houses have been built in rural district council areas out of the total number that have been erected since the War; but he must know that only an infinitesimal proportion of those houses are tenanted by agricultural labourers.
My own Division is a typical example of what happens. There have been four or five new collieries started since 1914, each one in the heart of a rural area. The colliery company must erect, approximately, 2,000 houses for their employés, and these houses have largely been erected by the National Housing Association as a public utility society; but of the 6,000 or 7,000 houses which have been erected in that Parliamentary Division, every one of them in a rural district council area, not a single house is occupied by an agricultural labourer. Therefore, whether it be 270,000 or 470,000—whether they have been erected by the rural district councils or by private enterprise makes no difference—the problem of the agricultural labourer and his housing to-day is where it was 10
or 20 years ago. From that point of view little or nothing has been done to deal with what we conceive to he a great human problem in the rural areas. The Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1926, has proved the colossal failure which many of us anticipated it would. While it may be true that county councils, rural councils and urban councils ought to have done more, the net result so far has been that in England and Wales we have 151 houses in regard to which grants have been made by the various local authorities.
The Amendment deals specifically with the question of the tied house. We shall never solve the rural housing problem whilst the tied cottage system remains. The rural district councils invariably are composed of farmers and the friends of farmers. There are two reasons why rural councils have not built houses in sufficient numbers to enable agricultural labourers to have any sense of freedom. The first is that farmers are afraid of a rise in their rates; and they are the last people in the world to build houses, or do anything else, if it is calculated to increase the rates and, incidentally, increase their expenses. The second reason is that farmers do not with to lose the powers they have over their workmen which the system of the tied cottage gives. If agricultural labourers had the same freedom which other workers have the tyranny that is practised to-day, and which I shall prove by one or two examples, could not obtain in any part of rural Britain. The real cause of the agricultural housing problem can therefore be laid at the door of our rural councils, and through them to the farmers who are represented on these councils. They have never made any attempt to solve this problem, and they never will, because they desire to see the tied cottage system retained. We think it should be abolished, and it can only be abolished by erecting a sufficient number of houses to enable alternative accommodation to be provided in every district where agricultural labourers live.
The agricultural labourer has less freedom than any other body of workers in the country. He has no sort of protection under the law. The Rent Restrictions Act applies to almost every class of property except the property occupied by agricultural labourers.There are
three types of tenant. First, there is the servant occupier who must occupy the house owned by the farmer for whom he works. Under the most flimsy pretext the farmer can turn his tenant out any day in the week without going to the county agricultural committee for a certificate, or to the Court, or indeed doing anything at all except that he must not use too much violence in turning the tenant on to the street. That particular type of agricultural labourer does not dare to ask for the wages to which he is entitled, does not dare to resist any reduction, does not dare to refuse to work longer hours——

Sir H. CAUTLEY: Is the hon. Member giving us definite facts?

Mr. WILLIAMS: The statements I am making I am prepared to justify. We have a number of cases on record in which members of the legal profession have been involved very often on the side of the owner.

Sir WILFRID SUGDEN: Do I understand the hon. Member would prefer that the tied house system in colliery districts should he eliminated?

Mr. WILLIAMS: I do not know whether the hon. Member was in the House in 1924, but if so he will remember that I moved an Amendment to the 1924 Housing Act, which would have made tied houses in mining districts an impossibility in the future, especially where Government financial assistance had been given towards their erection. The miner can take care of himself, because he happens to be a member of a strong trade union organisation. Rural workers are scarcely organised at all and have no defence against a tyrannical employer who happens to be the owner of the house they occupy. I do not wish to imply that all farmers are men of this type. There are good and bad farmers, just as there are good and bad miners, but we have to legislate for the worst type of individual. There is another kind of tenant, the individual who lives under his employer and who can be turned off at any moment his employer likes, as long as the employer can prove to the Court that he has entered into a contract with another employé to take over the work. He can dismiss his employé, give him
notice to leave the house, enter into an agreement with another workman, and turn his previous employé out of the house any day of the week. No alternative accommodation need be provided before that transaction takes place. We say that this power in the hands of the worst kind of farmer is not only a danger to the workman and his wife and family, but is a positive danger to the farmer himself.
There is also the kind of tenant who happens to live in a house owned by a farmer for whom the tenant does not work. In this case the farmer, if he desires, can go to the county agricultural committee and inform them that he wants the house for the purpose of carrying on his work. As the county agricultural committee invariably consist of farmers they are prepared to grant the certificate on the least pretence. If the man happens to live three or four miles from the farm it makes no difference, he is turned on to the streets, and no alternative accommodation need be provided for him. We suggest that this tied cottage system is the most disturbing factor in the agricultural life of this country and is the real cause of the housing problem in rural areas. There can only be one way of solving it, and that is to insist on the nation itself being responsible for a national survey and superimposing a national rural housing scheme in rural areas in spite of the rural district councils.

Mr. HURD: Who will run this scheme?

Mr. WILLIAMS: If the nation makes itself responsible for a national agricultural housing scheme, I suppose the nation will provide the means and the machinery for carrying it out. We are confronted with this position. No matter what Housing Acts have been passed, 1919, 1923, 1924 and 1926, we are still left with this rural problem, and one of two things will have to be done. We must either leave the situation as it is without providing a solution or we must take steps other than those which have been tried in the past and have proved a failure. I make this suggestion as an individual Member of Parliament. The rural district councils have failed because they prefer the tied cottage system to the free workmen and the free cottage, and it, therefore, is the duty of the nation to do in rural areas what the rural
councils have failed to do. Tenants are turned out of their houses on the most flimsy of pretences.
Let me give one or two cases to justify that statement. The National Agricultural Workers' Union deals with hundreds of these cases every year. It may be argued by hon. Members opposite that the abolition of the tied cottage would inconvenience the farmer, but I submit that the inconvenience would be incomparably less than that which is now felt by the agricultural labourer and his wife and family whose goods and chattels are placed on the street. We have transport facilities to-day, as well as telephonic facilities, and the inconvenience to the farmer would he very small indeed. The fact that a man is leaving his employer of necessity implies that he has obtained employment elsewhere, and he naturally wants to remove to his new employer's surroundings. He would leave the cottage at the earliest possible moment. We say that alternative accommodation should he provided. If housing in rural areas could be undertaken on these lines we should breed a healthy body of keen workers who would make our agricultural life what it should be.
Let me give one or two cases. Hon. Members will remember that in. 1923 there was a big dispute in Norfolk. The farmers gave notice to reduce wages from 25s. to 22s. per week. One large farm changed hands, and. the new farmer bought 20 cottages over the heads of the existing tenants. He went to the county agricultural committee for 11 certificates to have 11 men turned out of their house. A strenuous fight was made, and it was only because of the trade union strength that it was possible to resist for a time the efforts of this particular employer. In almost every county in the country, with perhaps the exception of Durham where there is a fair sprinkling of Labour representatives, these certificates would have been granted. There is another case in the Isle of Wight, where the owner of a cottage tried every device he could to get the man turned out. He only worked for him periodically. Finally, proving that he did not require the house for his own purposes, he sold it, and the new employer is taking this tenant to Court in order to have him turned out on the pretence that he wants it for one of his own employés, If the order is granted
against this workman, he will be mulcted in costs of about £10. That is what no agricultural labourer dare contemplate for a moment. All sorts of things happen as a result of men having no protection. Here is another case from Yorkshire—I do not desire to mention names and thus give them a free advertisement. This summons was received this week:
I … hereby give you notice that unless peaceable possession of the dwelling-house and premises situate at, Fairburn near Ferrybridge in the said county of York which were held by you of me under a tenancy which was duly determined on the 14th day of March, 1928, and which dwelling house is now held over and detained from me be given to me on or before the expiration of seven clear days from the service of this notice, I shall apply on Thursday, the 12th day of April, 1928, at 11 o'clock in the forenoon on that day at the Court-house, Sherburn, to His Majesty's Justices of the Peace, acting for the Division of Upper Barkston Ash in Petty Sessions assembled to issue their warrant directing the constables of the said division to enter and take possession of the said dwelling-house and to eject any person therefrom.
The feelings of the farm labourer and his wife on reading a summons like that can be better imagined than described; particularly when they hear that constables are going to eject them and put them on the streets. This course has been taken against this tenant because it alleged that he has made statements concerning the farmer's daughter and some other person who lives in that neighbourhood. For that flimsy reason the man is given notice to leave his house, and is going to be robbed of his wages and his home. The rural housing problem will not he solved by rural district councils unless and until this House determines that the tied house system has to go. I hope that this Debate will at least inspire those who realise the injustice of the tied cottage system into attempting to provide a national scheme which will enable agricultural labourers to be as free as any other body of workers in the country.

Mr. RILEY: I beg to second the Amendment.
We on this side of the House desire to acknowledge the record which has been detailed to the House in connection with the progress of rural housing. That progress has not, of course, been as wide as we would have liked to see it, but
none the less there has been a substantial achievement in the last three or four years, not only in the urban areas, but in rural areas as far as housing is concerned. There still remains a great deal to be done, and the Amendment is aimed at trying to concentrate public attention upon a very pressing aspect of the problem, namely, the question of the tied house. The hon. Member for Stamford (Mr. Smith-Carington), in speaking in support of the Motion, expressed some sympathy with the Amendment, but said that he saw difficulties in the way. He referred to a point to which I wish also to call attention. He seemed to regard the grievance as not substantial, and while undoubtedly it was true that there were cases of great hardship in connection with tied houses, he thought they were not as numerous as they might be made out to be by the supporters of the Amendment. My hon. Friend who moved the Amendment, referred to certain actual cases, which have come under cognisance of the Agricultural Workers' Union. These cases are extremely numerous. I have here a report detailing case after case in which the Agricultural Workers' Union has been concerned during the last two or three years, in an attempt to protect its members against the arbitrary action of farmers who had the power of the tied cottage system at their disposal.

Mr. HURD: Are those cases where legal proceedings were taken?

Mr. RILEY: Yes.

Mr. HURD: With what result?

Mr. RILEY: With varying results. In some cases the employer has been mulcted in damages for illegal ejectments, and in other cases the employer's applications have been granted. I will quote one or two cases. Here is the case of a man, a member of the union. He entered into a contract to work as a cowman. After he had been working for a fortnight his employer wished him to take on work as an ordinary labourer. This the man refused to do, claiming that the agreed employment could not be altered in that way. Thereupon there was a dispute, which resulted in the man's dismissal at a moment's notice. The man's wife was then approached by the employer and told to remove from her
cottage within the next few days. The request was not complied with, and as a result two men attended at the house, a policeman standing by, and the man's furniture was put upon the roadside. That was in England, not in Russia. It happened in the county of Norfolk in 1923. We took up the matter on the ground that the employer had no right to eject without an order from the Court. The employer, through his solicitor, claimed that he was entitled to act as he had done, as the man was not a tenant of the cottage but only a servant occupier. We took counsel's opinion through our solicitors, who advised us that we had no ground for action, because the man was not a tenant, and that when the man's employment ceased he was a trespasser in the cottage. Moreover the employer had not used too much force in ejecting him.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: Why was he dismissed at a moment's notice?

7.0 p.m.

Mr. RILEY: On the ground that he refused to carry out the instruction of his employer to do the duty of a labourer instead of that of a cowman. I will give another actual case. It is a case where a man objected to a reduction in wages and an increase in hours. He was the occupier of a tied cottage under his employer. When he objected to the reduction of his wages proceedings were taken against him, and we were successful in geting them dismissed on a technical objection. Further proceedings were then threatened, and as there was no further defence an order was made for possession and the man eventually had to leave his cottage. Here is a third case. It is the case of a man who met with an accident and as a result was dismissed. An application for an order was made, and, the man being unable to obtain other accommodation in the time allowed by the Court, he was ejected by the police. These are actual cases amongst scores and scores. What we protest against is not only the injustice which these cases imply; it is the unfair power which one citizen wields over another in a matter of this kind. There is, for instance, the effect upon wages. A man working for an employer and living in a house owned by his employer knows that he is dependent upon the goodwill of the employer for the continuance of his domicile, and he is subject to a pressure
to which he would not be subject if he were an entirely free man. That position deprives a man of self-respecting independence in the pursuit of his daily work.
This power of the tied cottage gives to those who wield it the right to defeat the objects of the laws that are passed in this House Take the case quoted by my hon. Friend with regard to a parish in Norfolk. It was the case of a farmer taking a farm upon which there had previously been a dispute. In. the parish there were 20 houses not in the possession of the farmer. They were occupied by independent people, tenants who were not working for the farmer. Among them were people who had been born there and had been living there the whole of their lives, some as long as 50 years. The farmer had a very large farm, and when the houses came into the market he purchased them in the ordinary way. He then made an application to the agricultural committee to secure a certificate for 11 of the houses, which he said it was necessary should be occupied by men in his employment. He failed to get the certificate. Why? Because fortunately there were men on the committee—not all Labour men but some Labour men—who said it was not equitable to give this power to a man to eject 11 tenants who had committed no crime and had lived in their cottages for years.
But what would have been the case if the committee had been sympathetic to the farmer? You would have had men who would have said, "Oh, well, there is a case made out. This farmer is extending his farm and needs more labour, and he has not sufficient house accommodation. We must therefore accede to his request. He needs the accommodation to carry on his industry." Suppose that that had been done and that a certificate had been given and that ejections had taken place. The farmer could have put in for a short time some men in his employment. Suppose that those men after 12 months came out of the houses and went elsewhere. There would be a change of tenancy and under the law those houses would cease to have protection under the Rent Restrictions Acts and any new tenant going into the houses could he charged any rent that the farmer could get in the market. This unfair use of the tied cottage gives the farmer power to influence the rate of a
man's remuneration and may prevent a man from getting what he ought to have.
What is the argument against the Amendment? It was stated by the hon. Member for Stamford, who said that, while he had great sympathy with the purpose of the Amendment, he saw practical difficulties in the way. He said that after all one could not shut one's eyes to the fact that there must be some houses attached to farms for certain classes of work—the tending of cattle and horses, and so on, which involved men being near the farm and their work. I want to concede that there is something in that argument, but nothing like as much as there used to he, because in modern times there have been great improvements in transport, and in the last 30 or 40 years the push bicycle, the motor bicycle and the motor omnibus have been made available in almost every parish and rural district. There is, therefore, no need to have men tied to particular houses. There are scores of farms up and down the country employing as many as seven or eight men without any tied cottages at all—farms with a milk department, and they are able to carry on their work.
Assuming that there may be some little substance in the argument of the hon. Member, surely there is a remedy for it? What I suggest is this: There should be extended to the tied cottage the protection of the Rent Restrictions Act, so that if the occupant has to go out, alternative accommodation should be found for him. Why should the farm labourer be in a less advantageous position than a town-dweller in that respect? The town-dweller has the protection of the Act, and cannot be turned out unless the owner can prove there is adequate alternative accommodation. If the Government want to he sincere in their desire to assist the farm labourer, they might at least give him the same protection as the town-dweller.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: I should like, at the outset, to pay a tribute to the Minister of Health, because he is the only Minister of Hearth that I know of who goes round the rural districts. He has been round a great many parts of the rural areas, and has seen not only the tied cottages but cottages in rural towns,
and slightly larger towns where agricultural labourers are housed, and he saw for himself the kind of conditions which would admit of a Housing Act to improve them.

Mr. SHEPHERD: Has he ever lived in one of these cottages?

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: That is not the point. It was not the practice of the Labour Minister of Health to go round the rural areas and see for himself, and I hope some day hon. Members opposite will also see for themselves the conditions in the rural areas. If they did, they would modify their views. I think we are all extremely attracted by the idea of doing away with the tied cottage, but I should like to hear of a possible way of doing away with it. We did not get that information from either the Mover or Seconder of the Amendment.

Mr. SHEPHERD: Might I remind the hon. and gallant Gentleman that both the Mover and Seconder said that the Rent Act should apply to all cases, to rural housing as well as in the towns.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: The point is that by that Act of Parliament it is not possible to provide alternative accommodation. I want to say, first of all, that there is a grave objection to doing away with tied cottages in sparsely inhabited areas. As the Mover of the Amendment is a miner he must be accustomed to the tied cottage system, and he must be alive to the fact that there is an extraordinarily good reason for it as alternative accommodation is not available, and cannot be economically provided. I should like to know from some of the miners whether the co-operative societies have done anything with the tied cottage system in their collieries.
I want to speak about the difficulty of providing alternative accommodation in sparsely populated areas. There are farms the adjoining farms to which are perhaps miles away. The villages may be five, six or seven miles away. When a man gets a job, he wants to find a cottage near his job, and it is also to the interests of the farmer that he should do so. It is most important that he should get the cottage near where he
works, because he has to be on the spot when anything happens to the stock. That is the first objection. The second objection is this: Supposing you have a man with a tied system of cottages and he is at present paying a very low rent. When the tied cottage system is done away with, whoever takes them over, the State, local authority or private owner, will charge an economic, which will be an increased rent, and there will be no guarantee that these cottages will be used by agricultural labourers but by anyone who wants them. There is also the question of the distance from work. Hon. Members opposite are quite accustomed to going several miles to their work by underground, omnibuses, and so on. No doubt in the country people can go a certain distance on bicycles, but they cannot effectively carry out their work by this means, certainly not in the condition of some of the country lanes. In regard to what was said by the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Barr), I should have thought Scotland was one of the most difficult places in which to abolish the system, especially in the North-East and West of Scotland. I think we ought not to pass from the subject without going into the reasons for the shortage of cottages if we would do away with the tied cottage system. The system depends on the shortage of cottages in the rural areas. There are two reasons as far as a private landlord is concerned, the incidence of Death Duties, which is a scheme more suited for those who have their capital in shares than in land, and secondly, the scheme of taxation of land values, for which the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) is responsible.

Mr. SHEPHERD: Which came first, the Death Duties or the tied cottages?

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: The next reason for the shortage is the present land policy of the two parties opposite.

Mr. SPEAKER: We are now confined to the subject of the Amendment.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: I hoped to show that the difficulty of doing away with tied cottages was that we could not provide alternative houses to take their place, and it is because the policies of the two parties opposite have so
largely eliminated the value of the land that it does not pay to put new cottages on the land. I just want to say to the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment in this respect that they have brought forward several grievances. How many grievances were there in the whole country?

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: The Agricultural Council deals with hundreds of these cases, and it must be assumed there are tens of thousands of them.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: There are
1,000,000 agricultural workers in this country and 200,000 farmers, and until the hon. Members prove their case, I intend to keep an open mind on the subject.

Mr. HASLAM: The hon. Member who moved the Amendment and who was supported by the Seconder, asserted it was the tied cottage system that was holding up housing, and that the farmers were strongly in favour of keeping on the system, and on account of that were against the rural district councils fulfilling their duties under the various Housing Acts. I must confess that, coming from the part of country that I do, I entirely fail to recognise the picture painted of the farmer by the Mover and Seconder. The farmer is represented as an oppressor and a sort of bully who would get a man into his cottage and use that opportunity for endeavouring to take advantage of him. Cases were cited where a man could be turned out at a moment's notice. I am not a member of the legal profession, but I was unaware that any employer could turn an employé out at a moment's notice. I think that wants more substantiation than we have been given. The farmer to-day is in rather a different position, at any rate, in my part of the country.
I can give the hon. Member opposite cases of farmers who have had men in their employ 10, 15, and even 20 years working side by side with them; and what the farmer is concerned with today is not how he can oppress them, but how long in the disastrous circumstances that he has got to face he will he able to continue to pay wages out of his reserves or by means of borrowed money. He is trying to keep the farm going and
is paying wages which in the circumstances are comfortable and good wages and meet the men's wants, and he has been doing that in adverse circumstances for some time. To come to the point about rural district councils, the hon. Member opposite maintained that these councils do not do their duty because they mainly consist of farmers and farmers' friends. Let me give to hon. Members a few facts regarding an exclusively rural district, the district of Spils by in Lincolnshire, which contains no large towns and has no mines or factories in its neighbourhood. Since the War, the council of this district has erected 112 houses, 54 under the Act of 1019 and 58 under the Act of 1924. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I am quite willing to give credit to every Measure that has done its part in this matter. In addition, that council has granted subsidies to those who have put up houses by private enterprise. Under the 1919 Act there were 20 such houses; under the 1923 Act 154, and under the 1924 Act, two, making a total of 176. There have also been loans granted under various Acts such as the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act, the Housing Act of 1925 and the recent Housing Act of 1926, and the total number of houses provided is 315.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Do I understand that these houses have been erected for tenancy by agricultural labourers?

Mr. HASLAM: I am saying that they have been erected in rural districts and in villages. I will come to the point about the agricultural labourers. These houses cannot be let by the rural district council at the same rent as the tied cottage, because of the economic conditions. These houses cost 6s., 7s., or 8s. a week, and the tied cottage costs 2s. or 3s. per week. I question whether the agricultural worker would pay that increase of price and regard it as a good bargain for the sake of being independent and away from the farmer. I do not think there would be many in this district to take such a view. At any rate, the facts and figures which I have quoted relating to a rural district council with farmers on it, shows that the farmers have no disposition to refuse to provide houses because they want to maintain only their own tied cottages
for agricultural workers. The position of the farmer is entirely different from that nowadays. Labour is scarce and the good man can obtain employment on good terms. I had intended to make one or two remarks about the previous part of the Debate, but as I gather it would be out of order to do so I will close with the statement that I regard improved housing, whether rural or other, as the most important of all material means whereby the condition of the people can be raised. I am prepared to support any scheme produced by any party which will improve housing conditions and give us more and better houses in the country districts.

Mr. SHEPHERD: I intervene in this Debate for two reasons. The first is to express my amazement at the remark of the last speaker when he referred to many farmers giving their men good and comfortable wages.

Mr. HASLAM: I said, in the circumstances.

Mr. SHEPHERD: Yes, in the circumstances. The average wage of a farm labourer is between 30 shillings and 32 shillings per week. I wonder if the hon. Member ever tried to live not for a lifetime on such a. wage but for one week on 31 shillings, would he then describe it as a good and comfortable wage—even in the circumstances? I beg hon. Members opposite to put themselves in the position of these men, many of whom are employed by those who have been defending the tied-cottage system.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: Why do you not help us to improve it?

Mr. SHEPHERD: We are endeavouring to do so. I can illustrate my point by the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Louth (Lieut.-Colonel Heneage) when he put forward the argument that one of the reasons why we must have tied cottages is that the farm labourers could not pay an economic rent.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: What I said was, that if the tied-cottage system were done away with, the rents all over the rural areas would have to be adjusted economically.

Mr. SHEPHERD: I think that is the same thing. It means that the farmers must have the tied cottages, because the farm labourers cannot pay an economic rent. Why cannot they pay an economic rent? One of the chief reasons is the weapon—I say it deliberately—which the employer has in the form of the tied cottage. Whenever the labourers try to secure an improvement in conditions or to bring about, by organisation, any advance in wages, the tied cottage is used against them. They are afraid to make any protest because they know that, if they do so, not only their wages hut their homes are at stake.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: Can the hon. Member explain why there is a shortage of labour in the agricultural districts?

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Those who know the Englishman, know that he makes a protest just when he judges it to be necessary.

Mr. SHEPHERD: I am afraid I did not catch that remark. I ask hon. Members, do they realise that the farm labourer will never be able to improve his condition to any extent until we have got over this difficulty of the tied cottage? I am a teacher, and not many years ago I was as good a Tory as any hon. Member on the benches opposite. I was a Tory until I had a school of my own in the country. I spent 18 months trying to put into practice all the wonderful ideas on education, of a young man who thought he knew everything that there was to be known about teaching. I failed utterly, and I discovered at length I had failed because many of my pupils were hungry. I was attempting the impossible task of teaching hungry children. I made investigation in the village and I found that the wages of the parents were not sufficient properly to feed the children. Therefore, I attempted to improve those wages by the only weapon possible—by teaching the parents to organise for better conditions. What was the result? I tried to help those men, and in a few months time I found that, in three cases, where I had visited certain villages trying to organise the men, the farm labourer who bad the courage to become secretary of the local branch of the organisation, had been evicted from his cottage. On three occasions
I had the horror of facing a man in this position, with his wife and children, his goods and chattels on the roadside. I wonder whether hon. Gentlemen opposite realise how we feel about this matter, and how utterly impossible it is for those men to get any improvement in their condition as long as you have the weapon of the tied cottage to use against them. I would not have intervened at all in this Debate, were not anxious that hon. Members on the other side should understand how we approach this question.

Major PRICE: I think the last speaker knows more about the theory than the practice of agriculture——

Mr. SHEPHERD: I am a country man myself and 1. would like to be in the country again. Most of my hon. Friends on these benches originally came from the country, and were turned out of the country into the towns.

Major PRICE: I adhere to the remark which I have just made, because it is certain that if the hon. Member knew country conditions, he would know that the tied cottage is necessary for carrying on the farm in the proper way. The only reason for the tied cottage is that it shall be attached to the farm, and the farmer cannot get possession of a tied cottage unless it can be proved that the cottage is essential for carrying on the farm in a proper manner. The farmer has to prove that to the satisfaction of the agricultural committee before he can go to the Court and, ask for an order for

eviction. The idea that a fanner can turn a man out on to the road without a word of explanation is perfect nonsense.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman not aware that a farm servant can be turned out without reference to the agricultural committee?

Major PRICE: That is a different point altogether. That is not the case of an agricultural labourer. That is the case of a servant who pays no rent at all. That is service occupation and not farm labourers' occupation. If the Mover of the Amendment had any knowledge of agriculture he would know that perfectly well. I am certain that half the objections raised by hon. Members on the benches opposite are due to pure ignorance of agricultural conditions. The idea that the farmer can pay more in wages than he can earn by the sale of his produce is also nonsense. When hon. Members opposite help us to get agriculture back into a proper paying condition then the farm labourers' wages can be raised, but not before. Any suggestion to the contrary is like the theory that you can provide houses by passing Acts of Parliament. It is something that has never yet happened and never will happen. The whole trouble about the question of housing both rural and urban is that you penalise anybody who manufactures a house and treat him as a criminal.

Question put, "That those words he there added."

The House divided: Ayes,77; Noes, 165.

Division No. 70.]
AYES.
[7.30 p.m.


Alexander, A.V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Gosling, Harry
Lee, F.


Ammon, Charles George
Greenall, T.
Livingstone, A. M


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Lowth, T.


Baker, Walter
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Barr, J.
Griffith, F. Kingsley
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
March, S.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Groves, T.
Maxton, James


Broad, F. A.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Montague, Frederick


Bromley, J.
Hardie, George D.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Naylor, T. E.


Buchanan, G.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Paling, W.


Charleton, H. C.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Cluse, W. S.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Ponsonby, Arthur


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Compton, Joseph
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, slivertown)
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Cove, W. G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Scrymgeour, E.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Day, Harry
Kelly, W. T.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Dennison, R.
Kennedy, T.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Dunnico, H.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Sitch, Charles H.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Kirkwood, D.
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Lansbury, George
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Gillett, George M.
Lawson, John James
Snell, Harry


Stamford, T. W.
Viant, S. P.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—


Stephen, Campbell
Wallhead, Richard C.
Mr. T. Williams and Mr. Riley.


Thurtle, Ernest
Wellock, Wilfred



Tinker, John Joseph
Wright, W.



NOES.


Albery, Irving James
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Forrest, W.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Perring, Sir William George


Apsley, Lord
Fraser, Captain Ian
Pilcher, G.


Atkinson, C.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Ganzonl, Sir John
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Balniel, Lord
Glimour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Price, Major C. W. M.


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Goff, Sir Park
Raine, Sir Walter


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Gower, Sir Robert
Ramsden, E.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Berry, Sir George
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Rentoul, G. S.


Betterton, Henry B.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Blundell, F. N.
Hacking, Douglas H.
Ropner, Major L.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hamilton, Sir George
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Hammersley, S. S.
Rye, F. G.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Salmon, Major I.


Braithwalte, Major A. N.
Hartington, Marquess of
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Brass, Captain W.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Haslam, Henry C.
Sandon, Lord


Briscoe, Richard George
Headlam, Lieut. Colonel C. M.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Brittain, Sir Harry
Henderson, Capt. R.R. (Oxf'd,Henley)
Sinclair,Col.T.(Queen's Univ., Belfst.)


Brocklebank C. E. R.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Buchan, John
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Burman, J. B.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Smithers, Waldron


Caine, Gordon Hall
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Campbell, E. T.
Hilton, Cecil
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Carver, Major W. H.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth.S.)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney,N.)
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hume, Sir G. H
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Huntingfield, Lord
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Chamberlain,Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm.,W.)
Hurst, Gerald B.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Cobb, Sir Cyril
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Cooper, A. Duff
Knox, Sir Alfred
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Warrender, Sir Victor


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Long, Major Eric
Watts, Dr. T.


Croft, Brigadier-General sir H.
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Wayland, Sir William A.


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Lynn, Sir Robert J.
Wells, S. R.


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
McLean, Major A.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Margesson, Captain D.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Dixey, A. C.
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Withers, John James


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Womersley, W. J.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Meyer, Sir Frank
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Fermoy, Lord
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph



Fielden, E. B.
Neville, Sir Reginald J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Ford, Sir P. J.
Oakley, T.
Colonel Crookshank and Brigadier-




General Clifton Brown.


Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House is of opinion that, in the interests of agriculture and the nation at large, every effort should be made to improve and increase the housing accommodation of the workers in rural districts.

Orders of the Day — SYNDICATED PRESS.

Mr. TINKER: I beg to move,
That, in the opinion of this House, the maintenance of independent organs for the

dissemination of news is vital to the preservation of the standard of public life in the country, and that the consolidation of the newspaper Press in the hands of powerful syndicates, and some of the devices employed by these syndicates to extend the circulation of the newspapers under their control, are contrary to the public interest."

I think I ought to thank the hon. and gallant Member for Dulwich (Sir F. Hall) for the opportunity he has given me this evening. When the ballot took place for Notices of Motion, the hon. and gallant Member for Dulwich refused to take the number that he ought to have taken,
the first number in the group, and took another one for the lucky number chance, leaving me the even number, which I took, and thereby secured this opportunity. The House will notice that the Motion deals with the syndicated Press, that is, the power that is passing into the hands of a few combines or syndicates. I think, at this juncture, I ought to try and point out what I take to be the functions of a newspaper. To my mind, they are three. The first is the collection and distribution of news, that is, events that have happened and events that are likely to happen. There will be no question about the first function. The second is the printing of advertisements, that is, the use of the Press by business men in advertising their wares, so that the public may get to know what is going on the market. I understand that the newspapers depend largely upon that source. From the information that I have received, it seems that many millions of pounds pass into the hands of newspapers annually from that source, and that if that were knocked off, probably we should have to pay much more for our daily newspapers than we do at the present time. The third function of a newspaper is the moulding of public opinion. That is largely in the hands of the editor, through leading articles, and also by getting articles from various people, and by that means to a certain extent moulding public opinion.

I want, in order to show the gradual development of the Press, to try and mention to the House some of the events that have taken place in the building up of the newspaper. I find that the first intimation of the really active interest of this House in newspapers was prior to 1695. Before that period there was a censorship of the Press, which means that the Press was bound by the House of Commons and was not allowed to print certain things. In 1695 that censorship was removed, and from that period much printed matter was put on the market, because there was more freedom. I take it that that would bring about the publication of the first daily newspaper, which happened in 1702, when the "Daily Courant" came into being, but it was in 1704 that we got the first active paper, the "Review," which was edited by a great journalist, who is recognised even now, namely, Daniel Defoe, and who was
one of the men who began to exert political influence through the Press.

We then pass to a later period, when the name of John Wilkes appears. He edited the "North Briton" in 1762–3, and at the same period a man named Woodfull brought out the "Public Advertiser" and "Letters of Junius." Wilkes was the first man to challenge the Ministry, which, he stated, was putting lies into the mouth of the King. I expect he would mean that what we call the King's Speech was not really the King's Speech, and he challenged the country on that issue, with the result that the House of Commons decided that John Wilkes had no right to do that kind of thing, and he was expelled from the House. Then we get, in 1771, following on Wilkes' agitation, the Commons issuing a Proclamation forbidding the publication of Parliamentary reports. Some printers were called to the Bar of the House, because they had violated the conditions laid down by the House of Commons, but public opinion got so strong that the House of Commons quietly dropped the matter, with the result that from that time onwards Debates in this House were made public. I am speaking personally when I say that I want to thank John Wilkes for his agitation, because as a result of it the whole atmosphere of the House of Commons was changed, and now, when I do get a speech delivered, I am glad to think that some of the newspapers might take notice of it and that my name might appear in the Press on the following morning. It does not appear very often, but in anticipation of the possibility of its appearing, I get some 24 hours' enjoyment! Therefore, John Wilkes did some good in that respect. I find that a man named Astley Cooper, at a later period, made it a condition with the editor of the "Lancet" that he should not have his name attached when he wrote in that paper, saying that he felt himself "disgraced and degraded for ever appearing in the Press." Evidently he had not got the modern feeling on this subject.

We then pass to one of the great newspapers of the present time, namely, the "Times," which appeared in 1785, but took its present name in 1788. It took upon itself to represent what we call the democracy. It represented the middle-classes at that time, who were agitating for greater electoral power, and the "Times" almost got the power to which
I am objecting now, in being a paper that practically controlled public opinion, because I am told that in regard to the advertising tax which had to be paid then, the "Times" paid £70,000 out of a total of £170,000, so evidently they got a strong vote. The "Times" got foreign news independently of the Government. Up to then, papers were dependent on the Government for foreign news. It was also responsible for the agitation which led to the granting of the franchise to the upper middle-classes.

We pass on to the "Daily Telegraph" in 1855, and I mention it because, as the result of the abolition of the duty, it was the first paper that came out at a penny. Then we come to the change, if I may so term it. In 1870 we had the Education Act. Naturally, people were developing their minds, and it is from that time that we begin to get some semblance of combine, and the names of Newnes, Harmsworth and Pearson become known. We are all familiar with the control they had over newspapers, and it is from that period, when people were becoming better educated, we see the attempt that was being made to get hold of the Press. I want to quote a comment of the late Lord Northcliffe. At that time, Mr. Carnegie threatened to buy up the British Press, and I believe that Lord Northcliffe was one of the men approached. He made these remarks:
We journalists have no objection whatever to capitalists owning newspapers and thus creating employment, but I object to being a member of a combination in which capitalists, ignorant of Fleet Street, dictate terms to those who have spent their lives trying to understand the complex question of a newspaper. The prominence of the list made me realise for the first time that behind every single London daily newspaper, with the possible exception of some sporting journals and a Labour publication of which I know nothing, there is a multimillionaire, a millionaire or a very wealthy colleague—a shipping king, a cotton waste king, coal kings, and oil kings, and the rest of them.
Lord Northcliffe, therefore, would not be a party to a combine. It shows that at that period an attempt was being made to get a combine, and to get control of the British Press. The "Manchester Guardian," which is one of the few papers that has remained independent, was approached about that period. The "Guardian," founded in 1825, six years
after the Peterloo trouble, is well worth mentioning in connection with the purchasing of papers to control public opinion. This is a paper which, since the founder, John Edward Taylor, set it going, has been recognised as opposed to anything like aristocratic dominance or reactionary foreign policy. Perhaps it is not so well known that an attempt was made to purchase the paper from the late Mr. Taylor for £1,000,000 sterling. At that period, this would have been much more than it was actually worth, but this offer was refused with scorn. Independence of opinion was preferred. So we get, at that period, a real attempt being made to get all the newspapers into one hand. It has been staved off for a time, but now we are getting a little nearer to that point, because we are getting what is termed "the Big Five" in operation. One is called the Rothermere group, controlling five large newspapers; then there is the Beaver-brook group controlling four the Cadbury-Cowdray group, controlling three; the Berry group controlling 24 in London, Lancashire, Wales and Scotland; and the Starmer group, controlling 30.

Sir WILFRID SUDDEN: What about the "Daily Herald"?

Mr. TINKER: That is one of the few papers that is independent. Now the Harmsworth Press are trying to control the evening newspapers. I have here a prospectus showing the attempt that is being made to get all the evening newspapers—of course, by legitimate means, but not by means which I think are the very best means. Lord Rothermere in a statement which preceded the prospectus shows that he is not out for a combine. He says:
We have no desire to bring all such newspapers under t he control of one group. I am convinced that this view is shared also by Sir William and Sir Gomer Berry, who are already established in that field to the extent of controlling the 'Manchester Evening Chronicle,' the 'Glasgow Evening News,' the 'Newcastle Evening Chronicle,' the 'North-Eastern Daily Gazette,' the 'Yorkshire Telegraph and Star.' and the 'South Wales Evening Express and Evening Mail,' in addition to four provincial dailies and four provincial Sunday newspapers. Sir William Berry and his brother will be, I am sure, the first to admit the undesirability of any form of Press monopoly, and to welcome experienced and powerful competition in the industry to which they had devoted their energies.
I want to draw the attention of the House to the means adopted to get control of public opinion. I have here some of the advertisements. First of all, there is the football competition. Just imagine what this means. The "Sunday Chronicle" last Sunday offered £10,000 as a first prize, and it tells where readers can get expert guidance to pick the winners; they have to look at another paper, where there will be somebody picking out the likely clubs, and, by that combination, there is a chance of getting the £10,000. Much as we all like a gamble—most of us like a gamble [Interruption]; I am speaking for myself, but we are all safe until we are found out—I do not think that it is the right way to do it to offer such big prizes. In addition the "Sunday Chronicle" run a racing competition in conjunction with nine other papers, and readers are referred to the "Sporting Chronicle Handbook," price 3d., and the "Racing Handbook," price 1s., so that competitors have to buy these to keep in touch and win the prize. Then there are the big schemes of free insurance. I wish the hon. Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) were here, because during the Debate last Thursday she let off steam about some of the papers, and she made this remark:
It is one of the most pitiful things in public life that so much of our Press is given up to insurance, and, where they stop stating how much they have paid in insurance, you have to look at the picture of a noble lord who owns the Press and read what he thinks, when probably the only thing he has seen of the article is his photograph."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th March, 1928; col. 1449, Vol. 215.]
I agree with the hon. Lady that it is deplorable that the newspapers of the day have to pay regard to that kind of thing. This matter is being taken up by the people in the provinces, who are looking with some dismay at the idea of newspapers being taken up by the big combines. In the "Yorkshire Post" of 19th March last, Dr. James Graham, Director of Education of Leeds, is reported as saying:
The provinces are threatened with an invasion by a great London newspaper syndicate. It is a proposal that vitally concerns the general public. Suppose the syndicate does succeed in setting up these proposed evening journals, it can only be at the cost of existing local newspapers, which means that, instead of the organs locally controlled, that are really native to
the city and the country, there will he a ring of gramophones that have their inspiration from a high and mighty potentate in London.
Again, I agree, because the Syndicate will only be voicing what London has to say, and it will be controlled by the head of the combine. We have greater opinion that that, and I will quote Lord Hewart. In a speech, which he made at a dinner given by the London Institute of Journalists, on 3rd December, 1922, he said:
Suppose a man has acquired a great deal of money, and he puts that money into soap, tobacco or any other household commodity, his opinions, likes and dislikes are of as much consequence to the civilised world as before. But suppose that the same man chooses to put his money into double rotary printing machines. The merest caprice and whim of that man, by the mere force of that mechanical duplication, may become a danger to the peace of the civilised world.
That is very fitting from such an able man as Lord Hewart. The "Spectator" has stated:
In a few years' time we might witness the formation of one great combine or newspaper trust. A special obligation rests on all remaining independent journals to safeguard their independence.
Only on Saturday last the editor of the "Manchester Guardian," speaking in Manchester at a meeting of newspaper people, passed this comment:
People have different tastes in newspapers, as in most other things. Some like to be amused, some to be instructed, others prefer a judicious mixture of the two. But on one thing we shall all be agreed: the newspaper is now a necessity of life. It comes with our breakfast, and there are some enthusiasts who have been heard to profess that they could better do without the meal than the paper. Be that as it may, it is certain that the newspaper has come to be the support not only of our breakfast but of a large part of our existence. It. is an essential instrument of our whole public life. Democratic Government—the Government of a free modern State—has been described as government by discussion; and how are you to discuss affairs of State unless you know just what there is to discuss, and have full and free means of discussion? There you get to the very foundations of popular government. …. The State is no longer jealous of its power, but the public would do well to be jealous for its character, and, above all, for its independence.
We have there independent opinion as to what is likely to happen if the Press
8.0 p.m
gets into the hands of a few people. I want to show the object of the attempt of the syndicates to get control of the Press, and again I wish to quote one or two opinions. Here, again, I quote Lord Northcliffe on the question of Press control:
Some of the provincial papers, like some of the London newspapers, are maintained by wealthy men for the purpose of political and social advancement. There is nothing wrong in that.
He is pointing out what happens, and he says that there is nothing wrong in it. Mr. A. G. Gardiner, writing in "John Bull" on 10th June, 1922, said:
During the past half-dozen years it has rained titles in newspaper articles. Almost anyone who owns a powerful journal can have a peerage for the asking or without the asking; and almost any journalist who can influence what the papers say can have a knighthood on the same terms.
There is no question at all about the influence the Press can wield. It can influence politicians of Cabinet rank, and can influence Cabinet opinion by its power. I am not speaking now of Conservatives or Liberals. Our men are human, like anybody else, and they can be influenced in the same way. I will give another comment of an able man, Lord Rhondda. The life of Lord Rhondda reveals a frank statement of his own opinion as to the desirability of owning newspapers:
A newspaper in London is a source of political power, and I am prepared to spend money on it.
Those extracts sum up the power which can be wielded by the Press, and which is passing into a few hands. This Debate is not brought forward from any party standpoint at all. It is submitted with the object of bringing to the attention of the House how important it is in these things that we should maintain a balance and keep things as fair as possible. There is the question of the women's franchise, for example. We have now coming forward a body of young people whose opinions may not have been moulded in any way at all, and, as Mr. Scott, the editor of the "Manchester Guardian," has said, these young people will be searching for opinions from whatever source they can get them. We Members of Parliament may go round speaking, but we cannot get everybody
to come to our meetings, and, if we get them there, they are not always influenced, and so a large field is left open to the Press. Just imagine what the effect might be if the control of the Press got into the hands of people who were opposed to women's suffrage, and wanted to create a position which is opposed to the whole trend of public opinion? That could easily be done, because we have all these young women whose opinions can be moulded, probably in any direction. Therefore, it is up to us to try to keep the Press independent, so that the people may at least have an opportunity of forming something like a fair opinion of the work of the House of Commons. The Prime Minister, speaking the other week, made a remark which, I think, bears on the point I am trying to put. Addressing the Junior Imperial League on the 12th March, he said:
You are starting your political life in a wonderful age. The whole world since the War is trying, however feebly, and with whatever stumblings, to start a new life. At the next election we have had our first election under complete man h no d suffrage, and the lesser term includes the greater. There is a catchword that has been running round the world since the War, and it is this: 'We must make the world safe for democracy.' I will give a truer catchword: 'You have got to make democracy safe for the world.' 
When I read those words, I thought that if we are trying to make democracy safe for the world, and know that the Press plays such an important part in building up opinion, it is time that we as the House of Commons, in face of this trend towards combines, considered what can be done to stop it. If we are of opinion that by voicing our views in the House of Commons we can put a check on this kind of thing, I shall be satisfied, but, if we felt that was of no use, from the very fact that it is wealthy people who control these combines, then I should expect the House at a later date to take some effective steps to put a stop to this state of affairs. This is only my personal opinion, but I am against men of wealth controlling the destinies of our people. In a short time, the men now controlling our independent journals will pass away and a younger generation may say, "I am going to be bought by money." Then we may see those independent journals joining the combine. Finally, it will be only a question of the three combines determining
to come together, and then we shall get at the head of the combine—it may be a good man, or it may be a bad man. If it is a bad man, the whole trend of public opinion will be influenced in a certain direction, and it will take us many many years to alter that trend of opinion. I do not want that to happen, and I have brought this Motion forward in the hope that the House may feel that it ought to give a warning to those who are attempting to gain control of the Press.

Mr. CHARLETON: I beg to second the Motion. I cannot say how glad I am that my hon. Friend has given me the opportunity of seconding this Motion dealing with the syndicated Press. If there is a danger springing up within the community, it is the duty of this House to examine it, and to state quite definitely what its opinion is about it. It seems to me that this syndicalism which is grasping the Press of our country within its paw is crushing out the real journalism of the country. In England we used to be noted for the free and sturdy independence of our Press. We have had struggles over the freedom of the Press, but eventually we got a free, sturdy, independent Press, able to state its opinions, able to guide opinion in the country, and able to give news; but with the growth of this syndication of the Press we are getting something different. It has been said that these great Press magnates found journalism a profession and turned it into a branch of commerce. You cannot deal with the newspaper industry and profession in the same way as you deal with the selling of cabbages, potatoes and things of that sort, because journalism is something far greater, more psychological. In every district we have a paper which has grown up with the district, which has been bound up with the life of the district; now we have these syndicates, which are proposing to permeate the whole journalistic life of the country and, perhaps, to push out some of the great organs which have existed for so long. What a tragic occurrence it would be if the "Yorkshire Post" were pushed out of Leeds and out of Yorkshire. It is a newspaper with whose political opinions I do not agree, of course, but it is a great newspaper, and all Yorkshiremen and all Yorkshire Members take an interest in that great organ—as Lord Balfour said when he was
Mr. Balfour, "That great organ of public opinion." It is a newspaper we can all respect, as we can respect the "Manchester Guardian" or the "Scotsman," and other papers like that. With the coming of the great syndicates things are altogether different.
What does the syndicalist Press write about most? Usually they are boasting of their circulation and, as my hon. Friend the Mover has said, talking about the number of prizes they give, and all sorts of stunts, such as standard bread, "grow sweet peas," "cook your food in paper bags," and all that nonsense. It seems to me that it is as was said by Hosea Bigelow:

"I du believe with all my soul
In the gret Press's freedom,
To pint the people to the goal
An' in the traces lead 'cm."

Mr. Wickham Steed, who was appointed by Lord Northcliffe as Editor of the "Times," has dealt with the position of the Press, and I think what he says is worth hearing. He says:
When newspapers become solely or chiefly money-making machines for their controlling proprietors they cease to fulfil their true function.
Any of us who know anything of the history of our newspapers know that in the past they were respected, but they were not money making machines, and I believe they usually lived on overdrafts rather than on their profits. He went on to say
Overloading with capital charges—albeit on capital largely watered—and condemned to seek huge profits in order to meet them, newspapers tend to compete more and more keenly with each other for the circulation which means advertisement revenue, to pander to the lower public appetities.
That seems to me to be the worst feature of it all. With the growth of this syndicated Press I can imagine that, instead of having journalists with various lines of thought, brought up in different ways, looking out on the world with different eyes, expressing their views in their different papers, we shall have a little syndicate of two or three men in London, having huge interests in oil, coal, and other things, disseminating views which they call news, sending out opinions and calling it news, drawing up leading articles here in London and sending them broadcast—with,
all the time, their economic interests behind them.
This Press is subsidised by us, by the State. The recent report on the telegraph system shows the charges for hiring a single telegraph wire, the maximum being £350 a year for the user of that wire for 12 hours a day. These newspapers have the use of a single wire for 12 hours every day throughout the year for about one-third of what they get for a full-page advertisement for one day. We are subsidising these people to do this sort of thing. The smaller papers would have no need of it; they could not afford to pay the price for it. The position of the journalist is also in danger. The ordinary working journalist on a newspaper outside the syndicated papers is riot sure of his job. He never knows when this great octopus is coming along to swallow his paper. In those cases where the journalist is controlled by the syndicate he never knows when he is going to get another job. Many working journalists are working under such conditions that they cannot give of their best.
We want newspapers run and organised so that journalists do get some security in regard to do their job, and when they know that they cannot get on with their particular editor they should have the whole field of journalism at their feet to get another job. If these combines go on purchasing up all the newspapers or running other newspapers in opposition, in the end they will be looking at one another like Alexander with no more fields to conquer. In this way, they will inevitably form one huge trust, arid the whole of the news and the ideas of the country will be in the hands of one small group of men. I am sure the whole House stands for the freedom of the Press, but to have the freedom of the Press we must have a free Press. If the Press is shackled by being owned by one combine it cannot be called a free Press, and it will be dominated by just a few people. The Press has a great tradition behind it, and it seems to me that it is in very great danger of losing that tradition. I have here a remark made by St. John Ervine, who said:
We know there are certain demented millionaires who own newspapers and will write for them, and when one of these
men writes an article the staff hides its head, and goes about the rest of the week explaining it away.
What a humiliating position this is for the editor who has to run the paper and follow it up year after year. They never used to do that sort of thing in the old days. Sir Robert Donald, the editor of the "Daily Chronicle" from 1902 to 1918, speaking as the president of the Institute of Journalists, said:
During the last 20 years the Press has become commercialised under syndicate ownership; the main concern of shareholders was that their dividends must be earned even if principle had to suffer.
Sir Robert Donald is a lifelong journalist, one of the best, at his business, and that is what he tells us. It seems to me that it would be criminal on our part if we did not take notice of such opinions as those I have quoted. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Motion referred to the way in which some of the newspapers obtain a great circulation, and he spoke about insurance of the people who do not understand these things, and who are made to believe that they get their insurance for nothing by buying the paper. The very papers that talk so much about certain industries charging more for labour than pre-War rates are charging 100 per cent. more than pre-War rates for their newspapers. They tell people that by buying their newspapers they get insurance for nothing, but of course they do not. The purchasers of the newspapers have to pay for the insurance every day they buy their papers. There are competitions in some newspapers which are called sport, but they are not sport at all, and really it is gambling. The "Daily Sketch" is offering £20,000 for a free travel scheme, and so they trap the unwary. T will give the following quotation from the Biglow Papers:

"In short, I firmly du believe
In Humbug generally,
For it's a thing thet I perceive
To hev a solid Vally;
Thus heth my faithful shepherd ben,
In pasturs sweet heth led me,
An' this'll keep the people green
To feed ez they hev fed me."

The more the Press becomes syndicated the more the news Will become unfair. If you take the "Manchester Guardian" or the "Yorkshire Post," when dealing with a Debate in this House, they do
give it very fairly, although not so fully as the "Times." I noticed a little while ago in the case of the "Times" how many lines the reporters gave to the speakers in a Debate in this House. To the Mover of the Motion who belonged to one political party they gave 61 lines; the Seconder got 35 lines; the Mover of the Amendment 11 lines, seven of which were taken up by his Amendment; and the Seconder of the Amendment also ran, notwithstanding that the Mover of the Amendment spoke six columns of the OFFICIAL REPORT and the Seconder four columns. That seems to me to be very unfair.
I think in matters of this kind we might take a leaf out of the book of the French people. In France, when important speeches are made in the Chamber of Deputies, they have them printed and sent round to all the municipalities to be posted up. In that case, the people at least get the truth. [An HON. MEMBER: "They get the speeches."] Yes, they get the speeches, but I am sure that if they were the speeches delivered in this House they would get the truth. As we get more and more out of the hands of the syndicates, perhaps we shall be able to do the same thing. Under the present system, all sorts of misunderstandings are constantly arising, and there is no check upon them when their own economic interests are concerned. Hon. Members opposite believe in regulating the utterances of Communists, seditious teaching and so-called blasphemy. We have all heard of the outrages in Hyde Park caused by painting the hydrants the wrong colour.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I objected to that.

Mr. CHARLETON: It may be that after all the bulk of the syndicated Press supports the party opposite. [HON MEMBERS: "No!"] I was going to say that hon. Members opposite have no guarantee when the syndicated Press will desert them. It is not, long ago that a Minister of Agriculture was driven out of public life by one of the syndicated papers. All things considered, I think the syndicated Press is a danger, and I hope this Motion will be adopted in order to show to the world that we are concerned that the life stream of news
should be kept clean and not fouled as it is likely to be by a syndicated Press.

RENTOUL: From some points of view, I suppose, the Motion that we are discussing to-night is non-controversial, because I take it that hardly a Member of this House, no matter in what part he may sit, would disagree with the general motives and underlying principles of this Motion. All parties have suffered, as we know, from time to time, from what they conceive to be the misplaced and mischievous activities of the Press, syndicated and otherwise. No better example could be given than the experience that some of us who sit on this side of the House are having at the present time in regard to the suggestions that are being made with reference to what happened at the Division last Thursday night. I see in one of the syndicated papers to-night the statement that definite instructions have been issued, to those of us who, for very good reasons, were absent from that Division, to say nothing about it. If that be the case. I can only inform the House that unfortunately, so far as I am concerned, those instructions must have miscarried in the post, because they certainly have not reached me. A more mischievous example of the way in which some Press organs to-day endeavour to represent, or misrepresent public opinion, it would be difficult to find than that, and I think that no one knows better than the political correspondent of that particular newspaper. who is responsible for that article, that the suggestions he is making have very little relation to accuracy. [HON MEMBERS: "Where were you?"]
Nevertheless, however desirable may be the object underlying this Motion, the difficulties of carrying it into effect are, I think, insuperable. The Motion endeavours to lay down three propositions—firstly, that the maintenance of an independent Press is vital and essential to a healthy public life; secondly, that the consolidation of the newspaper Press in the hands of powerful syndicates is undesirable; and, thirdly, that the devices employed by some of these syndicates to increase their circulation are contrary to the public interest. Broadly speaking, those are three propositions which I think would commend themselves to all of us; it is when we begin to examine them in detail that difficulties and queries arise.
We all desire, as I believe the hon. Member who moved this Motion said, a free and independent Press. I was a little amused, if he will forgive me for saying so, when he began to explain what he considered the functions of the Press to-day ought to be. He said that, first of all, they should collect news as to events that had happened, and also as to events that were going to happen. It is just because the syndicated Press, in particular, endeavours to obtain too much news with regard to events which it thinks will happen, that we take the strongest exception to it.

Mr. TINKER: Perhaps I did not put it in quite the right way. What I had in mind were events that it is known will happen, such, for instance, as a certain international event which is coming off next Saturday. The point covers more than public opinion.

Mr. RENTOUL: I do not think that in principle I was misrepresenting the hon. Member, but I only made that reference in passing. I think that everyone desires to see a free and independent Press; in other words, we all agree with a very well known Liberal journalist, who, a short time ago, said this:
There is only one safe guide for the Press—public interest. Once that is put aside, then the Press becomes a dangerous trade like white lead, to be scheduled under the Dangerous Trades Act.
I notice that even Lord Beaverbrook, who is one of the magnates to whom reference has been made in this discussion, in a very instructive and significant little work, which some hon. Members may have read, entitled "Politicians and the Press," emphasises the need for an independent Press, and uses these words:
An independent newspaper should be in a healthy relation of give and take with its readers. It can guide honestly, and yet be guided by popular sentiment. If it abuses public confidence, it will be punished by loss of influence and circulation. It is necessary for such a newspaper to be incorrupt, impartial and clear-sighted to tell the rulers what the people are thinking, and to check any Ministry which tries to run the nation on the rocks.
Those are very admirable sentiments, but, so far as a great part of the Press to-day is concerned, I am afraid they are more honoured in the breach than in the observance. Never has there been a time in the history of this country when the
need for a truly independent Press was more essential than it is at present, when we have this enormous electorate, a very large portion of whom are politically uninstructed, and are far too prone to take their political views from their favourite newspaper, whether it be the "Daily Mail" the "Daily News" or the "Daily Herald."
The first question, however, that I should like to put with regard to this Motion is: What exactly is meant by independence? Of what is the Press to be independent? Powerful syndicates, after all, may be of different kinds. They may be financial; they may be industrial; they may be political; and control by any one of these may, as I think will be admitted, be fatal to the independence of the Press. The Mover of the Motion fulminated against certain sections of what he described as the syndicated Press. I felt that it required a little audacity on his part to overlook one of the most striking and, to my mind, mischievous examples of the syndicated Press that we have in this country at the present time. I refer to the "Daily Herald." The "Daily Herald," as it is proud to boast, is owned and controlled by the organised Labour movement. I would ask, is not this control by a powerful syndicate? What is the moral difference between the syndicate who run the Labour movement and a syndicate such as controls another portion of the Press which happens to be directly interested in industry? In the one case the policy of the syndicate is to try to promote their gospel of Socialism; in the other case the syndicate is interested, no doubt, in endeavouring to uphold the capitalist system. From a national point of view, I venture to believe that a syndicate such as controls a, newspaper like the "Daily Herald" is considerably the worse, because it is governed by men who are inclined to look at matters entirely from a narrow and partisan standpoint, whereas that is not the case, after all, with these other syndicates.
The "Daily Herald" has been at some pains in its columns to collect information with regard to the occupations and interests of men who control what it describes as the syndicated Press. They comprise men directly interested in banking, insurance, chemicals, electricity, coal, oil, tea, shipping, railways, rubber, groceries, films, motors, beer, gas, tramways, cocoa,
biscuits, cotton, printing and paint. That is a fairly comprehensive list of industries. I should imagine that men who are directly concerned in so many and such widespread industries would not be so likely to take a narrow and partisan view. At all events, there is no desire, so far as we are able to judge, on the part of the syndicated Press to bolster up the present Government. Consequently, hon. Members opposite need have no grievance on that score, because only last week I notice the "Daily Mail" referred to the Rip-van-Winkles of our Cabinet and said:
Unfortunately, the British Government muddles whatever it touches in connection with industry.
I am sure that is a sentiment which would commend itself to many hon. Members opposite. Speaking for myself and for many who sit on this side of the House, it is some gratification to us to reflect that if we have not to-day a truly independent Press we have at all events a Government which, unlike its predecessors, is reasonably independent of the Press.
When you begin to speak about an independent newspaper, I should again like to ask what exactly is meant by that. Of what are they to be independent? Independent of political parties? Certainly the "Daily Herald," for example, will not stand that test. Independent of shareholders? I feel it is better that a newspaper should be owned by a large number of people than that it should be owned and controlled by one person. Independent, you may say, of advertisers. Considerable reference has been made to advertisements. Some newspapers, of course, are more successful than others in keeping themselves independent of advertisements, but it generally has rather detrimental results on their financial prospects. There are some newspapers which have been completely successful. There is, for instance, the "Sunday Worker," which has been able to adopt an entirely independent attitude. It has had no need whatever to worry about dividends, presumably because it is able to subsist on part of the proceeds of the 690,206 roubles which were received as subsidies to party papers, publications and educational work, according to the summary of the balance-sheet for 1927 issued by the Secretary of the Communist Internationale and published in the "Workers' Life" on 23rd March last.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the hon. Member aware that the "Sunday Worker" attacks the Labour party far more than any other paper?

Mr. RENTOUL: I did not make any reference to its politics I was merely admiring its attitude of independence. If you talk about independence, do you mean independence of Press agencies? There, again, the syndicated Press, owing to its enormous wealth and ramifications, is gradually making itself independent of Press agencies and is building up its own news service throughout the world, thereby beating its rivals in promptness and accuracy. Consequently, when we begin to talk about the independence of the Press, we immediately find ourselves in a certain amount of difficulty. To my mind, the acid test of independence on the part of a newspaper is whether, when occasion demands, the newspaper or the journalist is prepared to adopt an independent line according to his best judgment, even though it is going to entail his own direct financial disadvantage. I fancy there are very few newspapers which would pass that test. That is why many of us in the House, however much we may disagree with its political views, deplore sincerely the disappearance of such a newspaper as the old "Westminster Gazette," for example, the independence of judgment of which, and the attitude of which were excellent, as well as the skill of its editorial work, and the high literary quality of many of its articles.
The Motion goes on to speak of devices that are employed by the syndicated Press contrary to public interest. Are the devices employed by the so-called syndicated Press any different from the devices employed by other newspapers that are not syndicated? Are they essentially different, for example, from some of these purely independent newspapers, as we are now assured the "Daily Herald" is? On reference to the "Daily Herald," of which I can claim to be a fairly constant reader, it publishes racing news and selections, thereby directly encouraging betting and gambling. It encourages greyhound racing, which many hon. Members think is so undesirable that it ought to be abolished. It publishes fashion news. Only yesterday there appeared a design
of a coat for a flapper, which I conclude is an insidious attempt to appeal to the new feminine voter. It publishes cartoons of Bobby Bear, apparently a feeble rival of the Dot and Carrie, Pip, Squeak and Wilfrid, and Mutt and Jeff of the syndicated Press, and, worst of all, it regularly publishes stock exchange news, and has financial news, and reports of industrial companies, which many hon. Members I am sure, especially some on the opposite side of the House, consider most undesirable and entirely contrary to the public interest.
If the suggestion is to deplore the newspaper stunts from time to time, there I think, the hon. Member who moved the Motion will have our entire sympathy. But unfortunately, all newspapers indulge in these, and all parties have suffered from them. I have referred to the flapper vote stunt that is going on at present, and most politicians have suffered from time to time from these so-called stunts. Even so entirely blameless an individual as the Home Secretary has not altogether escaped, owing to the fact that a short time ago, in the course of his duties, he happened to be present at an entertainment at a well-known restaurant in the West End. In spite of the fact that that entertainment was to raise funds for what one might describe as one of the most important and admirable causes from a national standpoint, he has been represented as going there in the guise of a mere pleasure seeker, although those of us who know him well must realise that it was only a stern sense of duty, and that it must have been most uncongenial to him. After all, men in a public position have to carry out these duties sometimes. We know that even an under-sheriff has to be present occasionally at an execution. I can imagine it was in some such spirit that the Home Secretary attended this function.
Therefore, while most of us would favour the underlying motives and principles of this Motion, I suggest that it is altogether an impracticable one. The remedy certainly does not lie with this House. Some time ago the Leader of the Opposition, in the "Daily Herald," used these words, when speaking of the syndicated Press:
The situation is an alarming one, and the public should take steps to protect itself, even by legislation if necessary.
He did not tell us exactly what kind of legislation he had in mind, and that is a point on which both the Mover and Seconder have been very silent. What steps could be taken by legislation to deal with these evils? In spite of their enthusiasm for nationalisation, I doubt whether hon. Members opposite would favour the nationalisation of the Press. That has been tried in Russia with what I understand are not very satisfactory results. You might say that no one should be permitted to hold shares in a newspaper or that he should be permitted to have shares in more than one newspaper. I doubt very much whether these suggestions would get to the root of the evil. In fact, I believe that no action that this House could take is possible without opening the door to far worse evils than those aimed at by this Motion. The Press of this country, on the whole, as we are glad to know, enjoys a very high reputation for fair dealing and accuracy; a very much higher reputation than the Press of many Continental countries.
The real remedy for these evils, it seems to me, is for all parties to try and educate the people of the country to take a more serious and active interest in politics and not to be so prone, as undoubtedly they are, to take their opinions ready made from the columns of some newspapers. Finally, to try and make them realise that the political opinions they see expressed in the newspapers under present conditions merely represent the views of a certain individual and therefore are of no more importance than the views of any other member of the public. I think that this process of education is gradually going on. I believe that the newspapers to-day have far less influence in political affairs than they had in bygone years. Therefore, while most of us might be inclined to agree with the Mover of the Motion in general principle and sympathise with the object he has in view, I for one have yet to be convinced that any effective restriction could logically be applied which would not violate some of our most cherished liberties and which if imposed could possibly be enforced in actual practice. It is for these reasons, while sympathising with the hon. Gentleman opposite, that I beg to oppose this Motion.

Captain O'CONNOR: With much that has been said on both sides of the House I find myself in agreement. But my first words are words of disagreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Rentoul) who has just sat down, because it is precisely because this Motion does not seek to do anything that I propose to support it and to support it, if necessary, with my vote in the Division Lobby. There are occasions when merely to enunciate propositions without doing anything further is of value, and I think that the mere enunciation of the concern which a great many people feel in this country at the operation of the syndicated Press can be of considerable value even although it does not pretend, and none of us want to see it followed up by, anything in the nature of action. I was intensely amused at the complete volte face which appears invariably to occur in the Socialist party when any problem of practical importance emerges. The curious and almost sentimental attachment to the old days, to the dignity of individualism, was really almost pathetic, coming from the source from which it did come. It was really quite touching to hear the tender way in which the great pioneers of modern journalism were extolled by the hon. Member, who, in a most entertaining speech, took us back to the earlier traditions of journalism. It is, unfortunately, I believe, true that we have lost that decorum and that decency of touch which characterised journaiistic enterprise in the last century in the hands of those more robust individualists who managed the great papers of the 19th century. That is our misfortune. What I wonder is, whether it does not follow from something inherently garish and commonplace in the whole outlook of our present democracy.
I am very much afraid that may be the case, and, if it be so, what my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft said before he sat down is intensely true, that you can do nothing until you have educated the democracy, so that it shall discard false standards, discard the reeking, sloppy sentimentality that we see all round us in the Press, and seek to set a truer standard whether in art, in politics, or in any other manifestation of our national life. Short of that, I confess I do not see very much hope for the Press. The ruthless and
reckless way in which modern journalism is prepared, for example, to dissect even the most intimate private sorrows must be a thing that brings a shudder of shame to any of us who have the misfortune to have to read the evening papers and come across it. For my part, I think I have said enough to show that on many grounds I feel the greatest possible sympathy with a good deal that has been said on the other side, and I venture to express a hope that, although it does not tend to do anything, this Motion may command the sympathetic attention of the House of Commons, and that, through the House of Commons, a warning may be expressed to, possibly, the greatest potential power for good or evil in civilisation at the present time.
My hon. Friend said, and said quite rightly, that there is no institution in the country that has greater potentiality than the Press at the present time. Unfortunately, it has power without responsibility, and, in my opinion, it is beginning to have to face a position when it is not likely to have either power or responsibility. I do not mind the expression of views in the Press. I do not think that any of us do, provided that they are confined to the columns in which views ought to be expressed, but what one does resent is that news should be constantly coloured with view s from the front page to the back, from the advertisement columns down to the accounts of the Stock Exchange. You cannot get rid of the predominating plan which, you feel, some master mind is endeavouring to instil into the paper from one cover to the other. We have heard to-day the statement of the Prime Minister on the subject of rubber. Tomorrow, you may be perfectly certain, that in those organs the design of whose proprietor it is to depreciate the position of the Prime Minister in the country, not only will you find his statement on rubber has been the subject of attack in the editorial columns, but, if you look in the sports columns, you will find that it has gravely upset the race meetings, and you will find it is going to have an alarming effect on the future of lawn tennis. And from one end of the paper to the other you will find, intimately interwoven by a cunning thread, the whole of the organisation of the paper so employed as to give a wholly false picture to its readers.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: It has upset the City actually.

Captain O'CONNOR: It has, I am not disputing it. But the fact that it has upset the City will be completely lost sight of owing to the fact that it is distorted in all the other manifestations. That is a device not confined to the so-called capitalist Press. It is equally strongly indicated in the "Daily Herald." I have a most amusing example of that which I happened to see only the other day. The Duke of Westminster made what was a most munificent gift to the city of Westminster—and it was accepted with the greatest possible gratitude by the city—of land on a long building lease of 999 years for the purpose of re-housing. This munificent gift—from whatever source it came, it was a munificent gift—was given proper publicity in most of the papers, I saw in the "Daily Herald" the following account of it:
The Duke of Westminster has agreed to lease to the Westminster City Council for the term of 999 years at one shilling a year ground rent an area of about 2½ acres for a re-housing scheme on the Grosvenor estate at Millbank.
That is an accurate and precise account of what occurred.
The property was flooded in the recent Thames overflow.
That is one of the most concise examples of the way in which the policy and the whole opinion of the paper is utilised to distort and prostitute an item of really important and interesting news, specially so, presumably, to the people who read the "Daily Herald." It attempts to make the whole thing facetious by putting in the stupid tag at the end, as if the Duke of Westminster had been getting rid of something which was no good to him at all.
I do not agree with one hon. Member who said that remarks in the "Times" should be recorded according to their length. God forbid that that standard should ever be set up in any newspaper office in this country! I do not mind so much about the people the syndicated Press or the other Press drive out of the public life of this country, but what I do object to is the people that it drives in. I think it sets up false standards even in our deliberative assembly, so that by specious publicity, we get a type of
reputation built up which is not in the best interests of democracy or of the country. Perhaps one of the greatest vices of the syndicated Press and one of the greatest disservices that it can do to the country is the distortion of standards. So much of the modern newspaper consist in the clever art of distortion alone. The art is to choose the simple things of life that are not worth bothering about, that are not worth expressing in detail, and to elaborate them, distort them and colour them in a vicious atmosphere of false romance, that might even so deflect the lives and outlook of some of us here as, in a sense, to degrade public life. For that and many other reasons, I feel that if this Motion goes to a Division I shall go into the Lobby in support of it.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. SNELL: The House, I am sure, is grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Luton (Captain O'Connor) for bringing the discussion back to a level which is worthy of the subject. I could not help feeling moved by the care with which the hon. and learned Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Rentoul) started his speech with the excellent intention of desiring to say something about the importance of the subject. But he was not able to refrain from making a complete burlesque of the whole situation by trying to turn it into purely political channels. If the purpose of to-night's discussion was to level charges at newspapers belonging to this party or that party, hon. Members on this side would have a very easy task before them. Nothing would be easier than to reply to the charges made about the "Daily Herald." The fundamental difference between the "Daily Herald" and what we call the syndicated Press is this, that the "Daily Herald" is not owned and is not controlled by mineowners, shipowners and arms manufacturers, who are willing to run this nation into danger in order to promote their own personal profit. The "Daily Herald" may, conceivably, be mistaken in its ideas, but it has no profit to make out of its ideas. It is not run for the purpose of filling its pocket. That is a sufficient distinction between the "Daily Herald" and the other newspapers to which we have referred.
I would like to deal with the point which has been raised, and which is of
importance, as to what we mean by the word "independence." By independence we mean that a newspaper, whose purpose it is to educate and influence the country should be independent of the great economic machine; that the people should feel that when they see something in the newspaper that it does represent an
honest view of a public problem and that it is not merely the view of millionaires who are influencing the editor to produce something which may bring economic benefit to them. I feel sure that I shall be voicing the opinions of all my hon. Friends on this side when I say that if the "Daily Herald" were ever able to control the whole of the newspapers of this country and become as great a menace to the free expression of opinion as we think the syndicated Press is to-day, the "Daily Herald" would be just as big a danger to the community as we think these particular papers are.
I regard this subject as one of singular importance because the daily Press influences both our individual and our public policy. It can make and unmake Governments, and it has a power for good or evil, as the case may be, which in the old days was held by the Church alone. The purity of the Press is as important to the future of this country and to the present condition of this country as the purity of the pulpit. A free, a clean, a responsible Press is a necessary condition of the mental and spiritual health of the community in which we live. When we see that editors and journalists who by their vocation should be the trustees of the public conscience are becoming the creatures of the economic machine, there is arising a spiritual condition, a menace which this House cannot ignore. The modern Press has developed features which many of us on this side, and I think the hon. Members in all quarters of the House, distrust, and which create some alarm. It is the man who possesses a million pounds, who has the craft or the cunning, who has the directive monopoly over people's labour, who can make his voice felt throughout the country in a way altogether out of proportion to its individual value, to such an extent that the journalists become the mere intelligent tools of capitalist operations. Therefore, we have misgivings that the free Press for which our forefathers
fought so valiantly is becoming in reality a slave Press; a slave to the economic forces which are operating.
If the House will allow me I should like to refer to the struggle our fathers had to give us what they thought would be the priceless inheritance of a free Press. Their aim was to remove the barriers which then existed against the free expression of opinion. They tried to safeguard public liberties, to free the minds of men from interference by Government, and ensure that opinion should have a free channel in which to run. The conditions which then existed were the same as those which exist now in Russia and Spain and Italy, and Richard Carlyle, who was the editor of the "Poor Man's Guardian," spent over nine years in prison editing his paper and being sentenced month after month and year after year for the sole purpose of being able to allow an honest man to say what he thought was right in regard to the religion he believed in and the Government under which he lived. I had the privilege of knowing some of those who in later years have carried on that struggle. I had the privilege of knowing Mr. George J. Holyoake, who was sent to prison, and Edward Truelove, who was perhaps a lesser known figure in the movement, and Charles Bradlaugh who fought for the freedom of the Press. Many times I have heard them say that their desire was not that any man should dominate public opinion but that every man should be free to contribute what gifts he had to the public welfare, as he saw it.
The hon. and gallant Member for Luton is astonished that we on this side should revert to what he calls the old individualism. Let me assure hon. Members that in regard to the individual soul and conscience we have never believed that the State has any right to interfere in any man's beliefs or do anything in regard to his worship. The State can do many wonderful things for us. It can take care of our bodies, give us better material surroundings, create an environment in which it may be a joy to live, but any State which tries to interfere with the souls of its citizens may do irreparable damage. That is the distinction between our attitude on these spiritual things and our attitude on the general material things which may be manipulated
for the good of mankind. It is because of these misgivings which I have expressed that we feel that a new danger is developing in regard to the spiritual life of the community. The Press is theoretically free. Any man with a few thousands can start a newspaper if he likes. We have got rid of Government control, and I do not want to see it restarted. But it is not the Government, it is the voracious capitalist who is going to manipulate the forces around him so that he may use the nation, not merely the individual citizens but the nation as a whole, to fill his own pockets and promote his own desires.
If I had time to criticise the method in which the Press works, I would say that it appears to undertake no impartial research into problems, to come to conclusions on their merits, and then declare a policy and stick to them, whether it is sight or wrong, whether it pays or otherwise. No. It makes a careful calculation as to what it thinks is the mast extended prejudice in the community and then it writes down to that prejudice; it supports it, whatever it may be. If the people want dog-racing or night clubs, then the Press is at their obedient service. If it wants a war with Egypt, or some other place, it will set itself to prove that a war is long overdue. That is the evil of it, and we have had the illustration already mentioned in regard to what is called the Flapper vote. Do not let hon. Members opposite be afraid because they have voted for young women being admitted into an equality of citizenship. To do the right thing never brings discredit on anyone or any penalty in the end. What we object to is that these events are dressed up for the purpose of promoting ends that are not always obvious, and the moral law—I say it with a great deal of hesitancy but yet with sincerity in regard to a certain class of newspapers in this country—appears to mean no more to them than the criminal law means to the criminal who breaks the law of the land.
The campaigns of unmitigated slander that are undertaken are really sometimes a disgrace to our common manhood. Let me illustrate this with names that will command respect in this House. There was never a more wicked campaign than that which was undertaken against Prince Louis of Battenberg during the
time of war, unless it was the campaign undertaken against Lord Haldane and Lord Oxford and Lord Kitchener at the same time. What for? Not for the good of the nation, not because they had evidence, but because it happened to feed the malice or prejudice of ignorant people. It was a crime at that time to be able to read German, and for anybody to express his obligation to Hegel and Schopenhauer was to make himself the target for their ignorant malice. That is something which is not in the interests of this country. My interpretation of the function of journalism is that it is to tell the truth and give an impartial judgment on the facts as it sees them. The criticism we have to make against the modern Press is that it dopes the jury, which we call the nation, and then exploits its prejudices for its own purposes. This is a terrible thing. If I lie in a Court of law about a trivial thing affecting my neighbour's cow or horses I may be put in prison, but if I lie to a million people on an issue that may mean war or peace, death and disaster, a lack of prosperity to the country, then I am entirely free from punishment if I choose the right series of lies.
My criticism is that the syndicate Press is not a mirror of the world as it is. It is not a reporter of facts as they are. It is a selector of facts. In this House, if I had the courage, Mr. Speaker, to defy your ruling, which I have not, and were to make certain remarks to hon. Members opposite, or express my real opinion of His Majesty's Government, the Press would most certainly take notice of what I said, but it does not; it selects, and it selects the things which it thinks will suit the prejudices of ignorant people in the country. I do not believe we can go back to the old state of things. I do not believe the Government can control the Press. We do not want to re-institute a censorship. We have, in the end, to trust to the honour of the craft of journalism itself.
The appeal made to education rather leaves me cold. How can you wait until the people are educated when the Press is engaged in perverting that education? We have to take an easier way than that. Therefore, I feel that in the end we have to rely on the journalists themselves. It is a significant thing that the workers on the mechanical side of newspaper
production have been able to enforce their standard of a living wage and the conditions under which they shall work, and that those conditions have been accepted even by the syndicated Press. Only on the intellectual side is there work that is something like slavery. These people can teach, but they cannot learn. They have not learned that they have to protect their own craft if they are to remain free men and to do their best work. Only quite recently three great and distinguished journalists, all of whom have been known to Members of this House—Mr. Spender, Mr. Gardiner, and Mr. Massingham—were chased out of Fleet Street and out of their profession because Capitalism needed duller minds and more obedient tools than they were. I think that the workers on the mechanical side have set an example in proclaiming standards below which they will not fall. They will not debase their occupation by living upon lower standards than those they have reached. Whenever the journalists get together, all of them, and regard their vocation as something sacred which may not be debased, and stand up.for that level of it, the public will have in this matter the only protection which can be given to them.

Sir MARTIN CONWAY: I have listened, as we must all have listened, with great interest and sympathy to the speeches of the Proposer and Seconder of this Motion. They were interesting and they were moderate, and they carried the general assent of almost every one in this House. I propose to make only one or two observations which occurred to me in listening to the hon. Members. I think that they over-estimated the power of the Press. I think that every one is liable to over-estimate the power of the Press. The late Mr. Kennedy Jones wrote a book, a copy of which is in the Library of this House. Mr. Kennedy Jones was a Member of this House, and I have always understood that he was the man who made the "Daily Mail." His book set out to prove this thesis—that the platform can always beat the Press. No matter how united the Press may be, if the platform is against it, if the platform is used by men of definite views which they are able to impose upon people, the
Press is always powerless to resist the platform. We had a very clear instance of that in the General Election of 1910. In that year the Press was almost unanimously on the Conservative side; yet the Liberals came in with a majority almost as big as that which now crowds these benches. That was an example that it is well worth bearing in mind.
It is easy to over-estimate the power of the Press. In proportion as the Press, is grouped in the hands of syndicates, so, does it lose its power. The power of the Press has been much the greatest when there has been the greatest variety of ownership, of opinion, of exposition and of principles. The larger the variety of the Press the more influence that is exercised. But once you get the whole of it—if you can conceivably get the whole of it in England—in the hands of a syndicate and that syndicate directs one policy and expresses one policy throughout all the papers, it would have no effect and no influence whatever. People would know at once what they were to find, and they simply would not read the articles designed to uphold this policy. A single policy supported by the whole Press of the country would have no chance whatever. It is only when the Press represents all the different phases and varieties of opinion that it has legitimate and great influence. I do not think that the Press ever educates the public at all. As a matter of fact the Press reflects the existing opinion of parties—large parties, small parties, or whatever they may be, but always parties. The endeavour of an editor nine times out of ten is not to impress his views on the people, but to find out what they want and to say it. There axe two kinds of crowds. The Liberal party is not an assembly of individuals, each of them possessing views. It is a body of opinion,. The Labour party likewise more or less represents a body of opinion. The newspaper does not address itself to individuals. The newspaper is not a voice" attempting to impress individuals. It is, a thing that addresses crowds, and it addresses them not from the point of view of intellect of mind, but from the point of view of prejudice and emotion. You do not appeal to a crowd by reasoning with it; you appeal to a crowd by assertion.
When I first entered politics the late Mr. Labouchere said to me, "Now,
young man, you are going into politics, and I will give you a, tip. Do not reason with them. Hardy assertion is the secret of all political success." That, I think, is the principle that governs most publicity in this country. Newspapers do not, for the most part, reason with people; they endeavour to impose their views upon people. There are two kinds of impositions of views, two kinds of relations between the individual and the crowd. There is the individual who impresses the opinion of the crowd, and there is the much rarer individual who imposes his opinion on the crowd. People like Napoleon and Bismarck were people who formed a certain view of their own, and had a theory of their own and principles of their own, and they gradually imposed these upon the popular mind. They were crowd compellers. Other people are crowd exponents. A newspaper is essentially an organ that expresses the opinion in a crowd. It depends for its circulation more or less on doing so. If it states what a large number of people think, they buy it.
There sometimes comes a great journalist who imposes his will on his readers, but these men are few. They are great men, and they deserve to obtain the effects which they produce. They are strong-minded, original-minded men who look at the world from an individual point of view. Such men, however, are so few that they need hardly be reckoned with. Supposing the entire journalism of this country were brought together in the possession of a single syndicate, dominated by a man of masterly power and great individuality, one could just possibly conceive then that such a grouping of the journals of the country would produce a very great effect; but, as a rule, that is not the case and we can brush it aside. In all the ordinary circumstances of life newspapers do not impose their views on the crowd, but merely express the existing views of the crowd. That is why I am not so frightened. I do not think that syndicated newspapers held in that way—with an individual at the head of them, be he rich man or strong man—have any influence at all worth mentioning.
People do not go to newspapers for education or to have their opinions formed. They form their own opinions
in conversation one with another. The great nursery of opinion is in the speech of man to man, and that is where converts are made to ideas and where public opinion is gradually built up. When it is built up, it finds expression in the newspapers. There are some newspapers—I will not mention names—which have tried to form opinions. There was a newspaper which had a definite policy for many years, then changed its character and kept using its columns for stunts and attempting to impose its thoughts and ideas, but it lost its influence at once. I am not afraid that the syndicates will, in practice, produce the evil effects which they might. I think that the interest of a newspaper proprietor is in keeping the circulation and the respect of his readers. That is to say, the industry is to be the expression of the views of a party, and as long as there are three parties the newspapers will always express the views of those parties. That is about all they can hope to do.
I do not believe that this is a very great danger. At the same time, I view with great dislike the diminution in the number of owners of newspapers, because I think it makes for unity instead of variety. I am one who likes nothing so much in life as its infinite variety. In journalism I should like that same variety to be maintained. I am afraid that the influence of syndicates may be rather hostile to that, but otherwise, as to it being liable to injure the country materially, or to impose the views of wealthy and stupid individuals, I do not think it can do it at all or that there is that danger. I sympathise with this Motion, because I think it is in the right direction, and I should be sorry indeed to see the vast number of different newspapers expressing all kinds of views in the country planed down to express the views, say, of a particular party platform and being multiplied in different parts of the country and crying out each of them its shibboleths. That is a danger which is not very threatening. I shall give my support to the Motion, but I am not really afraid that the evil results which were so admirably put forward by the Proposer of this Motion are likely to arise.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I am glad to have the opportunity of discussing this matter as affecting journalism. First of all, let
me say there is undoubtedly a menace to the public interest by this combination of Press power in the country. We are to-night presented with very great evidence, which is not challenged at all, as to the financial power that is getting its grip upon this agency which is of so much importance to the public interest. I submit that if there is any special concern, from the public standpoint, that ought to be carefully safeguarded, it is the Press. Speakers on the other side have made a strong point of the concern of the advertising aspect of Press power. There is no doubt that that great advertising factor suggests the very means whereby they are able to sell their paper at a very cheap rate, but, at the same time, that advertising power comes into the exchequer of the Press and that to a large extent provides what is to be said in the way of explanation of some particular business or other that has been largely advertised. But, outside the advertising aspect, from the public standpoint, there is undoubtedly a very clear proof of deterioration as to the value of the agency, in that the trend to-day is not to inculcate in the public mind that which is to be advantageous to the general body of the public, but to play rather on the weaknesses of the human element of the country and to make money at whatever cost. That was proved to a large degree in the Debate in this House when there was passed an Act of Parliament restricting the power of the Press in publishing some of the worst elements produced in the Divorce Court.
Coming to the political situation, I want to say, as a Member of the House, that my experience long before I entered the House was a very severe one, and submit it world be the same with any other man in any constituency who had to undergo the experiences which we have had to face in the City of Dundee. We had, for some time, two papers, one of which was reckoned to be a Liberal paper and the other a Tory paper. The Liberal paper advertised that it had the largest circulation north of the Forth. One day it was discovered that the paper had a poor circulation and eventually, not so very long ago, it got largely swallowed up by what is known as the "Dundee Courier and Advertiser." I am here to state—and I thank God for the opportunity of stating it in this House—that that is the experience of anyone outside
any of the three great political parties, and of anyone striving in that community to serve exclusively the public interest. What have I to testify here to-night? That Press, deliberately, set itself metaphorically to bludgeon me out of public life.
I made investigations and succeeded in proving that certain things were seriously wrong with the municipal department. Would they give the slightest scope to a citizen who was discharging his duty in the public interest? They would not. They put practically as much on their posters to sell the paper, as they had in the paper about the developments which were taking place in that public work. During 14 years, we have had five Parliamentary elections in which we have advertised creditably. We have raised our money from the general body of the people and have advertised well with that Press power, but we got no more in it, about largely attended meetings, than sometimes half-a-dozen or a dozen lines. What is the situation even since we have come here to the House of Commons? It is to the absolute discredit of the City of Dundee and its public representatives, ministers and otherwise, that their Parliamentary representation so far as the person now addressing the House is concerned, has been treated in such a way. We have endeavoured in years gone past, and are endeavouring now in the House of Commons, to raise a great national issue in a way that has not been done by any other organisation, and that Press deliberately sets itself to exclude anything of the kind from its columns. Within recent weeks developments have taken place in connection with our churches putting forward their views on the question of betting—exclusively directed towards betting on horses. As one of the representatives of the city, I have received, and am still receiving, protestations on that point. We have said on the Floor of the House and I have had to write it to these ministers, that our view on the matter is the more comprehensive view, but that Press has deliberately excluded any single word of our statement of our case.
I admit that in a discussion on a national issue, this may not be of particular importance, and I am not presenting the matter from a personal standpoint. What I say may not have much weight here, and I do not trouble
on that point. What I am anxious to say is that in the next election when I find that a Tory candidate gets three-quarters of a column to enable him to unfold his views about the wonderful situation in which the country has been placed by the present Government, it is the right of the people to know all the facts. I am submitting to you, whether it be a Tory party, a Liberal party or a Labour party which is concerned, this is a question of the right of the people to representation and of the freedom of the people in the selection of their Parliamentary representative. They have the right to know what is the position of that Member and whether he is speaking in favour of or antagonistic to their views.
We know what is claimed for our franchise system which is about to be developed by this Government. How are we going to reach the great public in our constituency if there is to be a situation such as I am presenting tonight. Are we to be completely limited by the present arrangement, by which a candidate is enabled to send to the electors a printed speech in which he places his views before them? Under Act of Parliament that is delivered free by the Post Office to the whole of the 78,000 electors, in the case of Dundee—a number which will now be greatly in-creased. That emphasises the claim which we are making. We have heard it said to-night that it is the duty of the Press to be impartial. I make the statement as a representative and citizen of Dundee that it is an utter scandal that a man's lifetime should be, passed in going through such a severe ordeal and struggle to serve the public interest in the circumstances I have described. Public men and business men of varied political opinion have said in private to me, "You are doing first-class business for the community under tremendous difficulties." The editor of a paper confessed to me years ago that on a given issue I was fighting on the right side and in the proper way, but the poor fellow had to scribble something of an entirely different character—the most ignominious type of journalism you can find. With all the extension of our franchise, we have a tremendous difficulty from this point of view.
Reference has been made to the "Daily Herald." I have had to say it in Dundee, and I say it here, that the "Daily Herald" has no room for Scrymgeour—no room for anyone unless he has the ticket. If you have the party ticket, then the Labour party Press plays the same game as the Tory and Liberal Press. That is my testimony here tonight, and my testimony publicly everywhere. Our partisanship has sunk to a low level, and I am sorry to think that the one Press organ of the Labour movement plays the same wretched game. That is not to say that I do not support the "Daily Herald." I recommend the workers to get the "Herald," because I believe it is a paper which, in a general sense, gives a considerable amount of information of the utmost importance to the Labour movement and I support the Labour movement. But I do say, seeing the peculiarities of our political system, and the partisanship of the organised parties, that it is very hard that any man should be treated in this way, who seeks to represent a constituency from the purely communal standpoint, and seeks to go forward in advancing the public interest backed with a mere bagatelle as far as membership of a, party is concerned.
We talk about making a great appeal in the Albert Hall to the body of the workers, and about the difficulties of organising the workers, but I am here to say that, from the independent standpoint, we have been able to raise thousands of pounds from the body of the people in the public halls and streets of Dundee. It is a deep-seated satisfaction that, in spite of all the unscrupulous acts of that wretched Press, that combined Press of the city of Dundee, we have been able to beat them every time, and the consequence is that they feel all the more annoyed with the situation as it stands. I am taking this opportunity of saying that there is a greater power than any Press combine. There is a Power which says in the old Book:
I am the Way, the Truth and the Light,
and
He stood in their presence, the doors being shut.
We cannot shut the door against that almighty truth, and, if we follow where
it leads, it will, beam and brighten more and more unto glory and eternal day.

Mr. AUSTIN HOPKINSON: I understand that the objection which the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour) has to the public Press of our country at the present time is mainly that, for sonic reason or other, it fails to report the speeches that he makes. I may say, having been in Parliament a little longer than he has, although not a great deal longer, that I used to feel very much the same way. When I had made an epoch-making speech, either here or in the country, I used to be very much afraid that it would not be reported in the Press; but I may say that further experience has altered my view of that matter, and my one fear nowadays, I can assure the hon. Member, is that when I have made a speech I shall find that it is reported in the Press.
With regard to the Notice of Motion itself, I should like to take exception to its very first words: "To call attention to the Syndicated Press." I understand, that there are certain good works which, in the language of theology, are termed "works of supererogation." Surely, to call attention to, say, the Rothermere or the Beaverbrook Press, or even to what we may term the Lloyd George-Rufus Isaacs Press, seems, to use that same phrase, a work of supererogation. I think we may trust them to continue in the future, as they have done in the past, faithfully to call daily attention to themselves.
When we proceed further to read this Motion, we find that the Mover of it, and presumably the party of which he is an ornament, is of opinion that we should maintain independent Press organs. So far as I remember, during the present generation there has been only one really "independent organ for the dissemination of news" in this country, and that was a paper which was called the "British Gazette." But that independent organ for the dissemination of news was, I believe, extremely unpopular with the particular party from whose benches this Motion has been moved, and that distaste for the journal was shared by same of us, who were so evilly disposed as to take a particular side in that controversy, because I am informed, and I believe it is the case, that among the items of news in the very first issue
of that remarkable newspaper, was one regarding the will of a certain coal-owner, who had left an estate of nearly
£2,000,000; and it seems to me that an independent organ of the Press so hopelessly lacking in tact at a crisis of that sort constituted a national danger.
Underlying this Motion, I think, is really a great fear of what is termed "the power of the Press," and I think that fear is immensely exaggerated at the present time. I am getting on in years now, but I can just remember a time when the Press had some sort of effect upon public opinion. There was a time when the "Times" newspaper, for instance, through its leading articles, used to affect the opinion of quite 500 to 600 persons in this country. But those days are long past, and the influence of the Press has waned at an accelerated pace, so far as my experience has gone. It began to get very, very thin during those hectic days which followed the War, when the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), accompanied by his well-known troop of comedians, used to tour Europe and set up his circus tents in one health resort after another, going about the Continent making a wilderness and calling it peace. One of his star turns, if I may use a technical expression, was at a certain very pleasant spot on the Riviera, and I remember distinctly, when that particular Peace Conference was going on, reading an ornament of the Sunday Press which can perhaps be identified when I state that it is a newspaper which appears to be written from end to end, possibly including the advertisements, by its editor.
On this occasion, the gentleman question had gone to this particular spot before the arrival of the circus and its chief, and his leading article—and those leading articles, as the House will recollect, occupy about seven columns of the paper in question—started off describing the scene before the arrival of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs. It described how the Mediterranean on that morning was shrouded in gloom—the sun was hidden behind dense banks of cloud, a bitter wind was blowing from the Alps, and the whole scene was lamentable and dreary in the extreme. Then he went on to describe how, at a certain hour of the day, suddenly the clouds were dissipated, the sun came out, and the
sparkling Mediterranean spread an azure carpet before his feet, while balmy breezes blew from the North of Africa. Then he stated that, curiously enough, at that instant the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs had descended from his train at the station. It is that sort of thing that finally made an end of the power of the Press in this country.
Attempts have been made by the syndicated Press to regain that power. The House will recollect a recent occasion when an ex-editor of the "Daily Mail" contributed a long dissertation to one of the Sunday papers with regard to a thing which I believe is called the "Red Letter," and underlying the whole of his statement there was a very broad hint that one particular ornament of the public Press, the "Daily Mail," was informed of all confidential documents passing through any Office of State, and was able to obtain copies at a moment's notice. In view of what had happened, the simple public of this country and the simple Members of this House thought there was something in this. But, alas, the Prime Minister, a few days later, came down to this House and produced from one of his back pockets a letter, which he had nearly forgotten in the stress of the moment, and read that letter out; and, lo and behold, the power of the "Daily Mail" to obtain red letters and other confidential documents appeared to have disappeared altogether. For, unhappily, a gentleman, of the name of im Thurn, was the source of all these secret documents which the "Daily Mail" was supposed to have obtained by suborning the third or fourth washerwoman at the Foreign Office.
But there is one very serious point about the newspaper Press to-day, and that is that two groups of papers, at any rate, have come to the conclusion that it is a personal slight, a distinct personal slight, to their noble proprietors that the Prime Minister of this country at the present day should have a reputation—whether deserved or otherwise I will not attempt to state—for being more or less honest. Since the people of this country adopted this view of the Prime Minister, the attacks of those particular noblemen on the Prime Minister have been bitter almost to the extent of being ludicrous. I need hardly refer the House to various articles which have appeared
in one of those newspapers dealing with the question of what it so delightfully terms "the flapper vote." Anyone looking seriously at the matter and reading those articles, and particularly the headlines, must see that the Press at present, or a certain section of it, has prostituted itself—there is no other word for it—to such an extent that its power must inevitably vanish altogether, and personally, I should be very sorry indeed if the activities of Lord Beaverbrook and Lord Rothermere should have that most disastrous result.
There is not the least doubt that in any civilised country at the present day, particularly in a country on so broad a basis of democracy as ours, it is highly desirable that the Press should, at any rate, have a modified power to guide and to inform public opinion. The result of the activities of some of these "syndicalmed Press Peers,' if I may use such a phrase, has been to discredit the whole newspaper Press of this country. It is a very good thing that this Debate has been originated from the benches opposite. The state of the Press is undoubtedly giving rise to great disquiet in the minds of men of all parties who love their country, and if this Debate has to any degree indicated to those who control our Press that. Parliament, and Members of all parties in Parliament, do really regard the present condition of affairs with uneasiness, it will not have been wasted.
In conclusion, I should like to put forward one other point about the Press which touches us very nearly in this House. When candidates are put up by one party or another for Parliament, it must almost invariably happen that the newspapers have some knowledge about the past activities of those candidates, and it is their bounden duty, not for party purposes, but purely on public grounds, when they know that ally of the candidates are men utterly unfitted to represent their fellow-countrymen in this House—they have a duty, which I am sorry to say at present they very often neglect, to warn the electors against them. If, for instance, a man has been responsible for untold misery and destitution in some great district in the north of England by his company promotions, which unhappily, in the present state of the law, have not brought him within the
reach of the law, promotions where there has been the intention to defraud, but not that actual legal fraud which is necessary to bring retribution upon him—when a man of that sort puts himself forward to represent his neighbours, or his temporary acquaintances, in Parliament, it is the bounden duty of the Press to state the facts. If a man of that sort, having attained the honour of membership of this House, puts forward one of the worst of his jackals to sit for another constituency, it is the bounden duty of the Press, to whatever party it belongs, to condemn the jackal as much as they should condemn his lord and master.

10.0 p.m.

Sir W. SUGDEN: It is right and proper that we should consider in this House the greatest educational factor in this country; and it is right
also that the most important feature of our national life should be discussed, irrespective of party. I speak feelingly on this subject, for I doubt whether any hon. Member here has had as many rejected manuscripts from these newspapers as in my early days I had, but even that must not prevent me from giving fair credit in respect of the enormous power that is, I believe, fairly wielded in the country to-day by them. We have been discussing the idealism of the Press, and it stands well for the outlook of men that this idealism has been voiced in the most efficient manner from most of the Benches. I was concerned once with such an ideal Press. My friends in the LiTieral party will agree with me that it was represented in a manner that had never been equalled. I refer to the paper known as the "Tribune," issued by Mr. Franklin Thomasson, who gave three-quarters of a million of his money to it; further, he sacrificed to such an extent that he was not able to enjoy the ordinary amenities of life in his desire to present to the British public a paper that would give the greatest thoughts and ideals in regard to commerce, organisations in labour, artistry, of form and letters as also international relations, which latter in later days have been more fixed under the great League of Nations. Franklin Thomasson, with a magnificent patriotism, gave his money and did something to lay the basis of our best modern journalism in this country.
I want to pay tribute to one or two great names in letters. I want to say a
word about Delane. Not one word has been said about him to-night, he was the father of journalism in the world. Delane, in merging the great national policy of this country, gave more to fairness and equality between classes, the proper visualisation of view-point between a other lands and ourselves, than any other journalist. In regard to foreign policy, those who are older than I am could speak better than myself, and I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) is not here to pay his tribute to Blowitz, the great Paris correspondent of the "Times." When we visualise these matters, and pay our tribute to the power and strength of the individualism in earlier times, we must remember that the wider interest of the British public to-day calls for more organised and expensive catering than could possibly be always supplied by the single paper. Again, some of us have sympathy with the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour). Some of us have lived, as he has lived, in certain localities where that stern individualism has been applied to a viewpoint of politics opposite to that held of he who represented the constituency in Parliament. But in the hurly-burly of politics and in the rough and tumble of everyday life we must accept these trials. I might suggest to the hon. Member for Dundee that it acted as a mentor to myself and draws out the best that is in us in respect of the views we hold. Remember, the Labour party without a single paper to represent them—for, with all respect to the "Daily Herald," it is not a shining example of journalism in the country—while the Labour party had no paper to take their side, yet they came to office. Such an event proves that the British public as a whole has a fairness and clear balance—it may indeed be a dourness—as to what is clean and straight and true, and they will, in their own right and proper judgment, put to represent them in this House these men and women who nearest seem to them to hold these characteristics. How are we to obtain an ideal Press? That is the practical issue. One has in mind papers like the "Tribune" which, although a thoroughly well managed paper, was not able to do what it set out to do. When we are criticising
and condemning the mass Syndicated Press—in which I have not one single penny share, and for which I can be supposed to have no sympathetic consideration, in view of the fact that I have probably had more of my valuable manuscripts rejected by that Press than any other man in the House—I say we must remember some of their splendid deeds. When during the War it was necessary to permeate some of the enemy countries with our point of view—because we realised that the valour and magnificent courage of our people were not alone sufficient to deal with the enemy and to cause the enemy to recognise the position to which we had brought them—we relied upon the magnificent secret intelligence methods of some of the great leaders and proprietors of the newspaper Press of this country.
Then there is the work which the Press has done in co-operation with one of the greatest professions in the world, the medical profession. I regret to have to appear to advertise the particular journal, but they have a right to a fair judgment. We all remember the Standard Bread campaign and also the cancer campaign. We used to read in certain journals advertisements of Dr. Jones' Blue Pills for Pale People, and we must realise what temptation there was for the leaders of those journals to traduce their columns thus. Knowing how easily the British public can he gulled on such matters, I say, all honour to the leader of a journal or a group of journals who put on one side the desire to make unjustifiable profits out of the gullibility of the British public by opening the advertisement column to these things, and these Press people do pick out the true advertisement from the spurious. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen must accept the position that the Press give the people what they ask for. If they call for uplift the Press will give it, in fact are most anxious so to do. It was suggested a moment or two ago that the type of newspaper which we have to-day is not giving us the moral or, shall I say, the ecclesiastical guidance which is so essentially necessary, but I would refer hon. Members to some of the columns even of the "Times," which every Saturday presents a sermon such as is not often equalled in some of our churches.
Let us compare our own Press with the Press of the United States. If some of our Press is presumed to he questionable, I say the American Press as a whole is perfect drivel. No Member in this House can tell me of a newspaper in the United States which is equal to any one of our four or five leading national journals. What obtains there? If they find a man with a peculiar habit or a double life, some of those journals will play on that weakness for sensationalism rather than give the more necessary news, and if the editors of our papers are not always friendly to our statesmen, at any rate they do not expose the secret vices or weaknesses of our great people—[Interruption]—if they have any. Let us take some of the European newspapers. There are men in this House who are great linguists, and those of us who read the French, German and Italian newspapers know very well that in none of those countries is there a newspaper equal to any one of the leading five newspapers in this country. Like other hon. Members, I would like also to pay my tribute to some of the great journals in the provinces, though some of them have pilloried me even worse than the hon. Member for Dundee. I say that we ought to rely upon the splendid commonsense of the British public and patriotism of the proprietors of the Press. I would advise those hon. Members who are complaining about the Press to try their hands at presenting that which they desire other people to have to read. The cruellest thing that can happen to any Member of this House is that he should be reported verbatim; and the second cruellest thing is for a man to burn the midnight oil in an endeavour to produce something in the form of poetry or literature which he fondly hopes will live for future generations as an example of what literature was in his day. Let them try their hand at it, and see what they can do. I doubt whether there are two Members of this House who would read the efforts of any other two hon. Members who undertook to produce a newspaper. I have noticed that my hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast (Sir B. Lynn) is present. He is a great specialist in providing what the people in the North of Ireland like to read, and I pay my tribute to his great powers of editorship, but if
even he, with his trained intelligence, were presenting something for the hon. Members of this House, I think it is doubtful whether he would receive very many letters of congratulation.
Let us put these things in their proper perspective. Let us understand that the Press is doing a magnificent service in this country, and if it be true that there are three or four large groups, commercial competition will keep the balance between them. These great magnates of printers' ink do not all love one another commercially. There is just the same rivalry between them as there is in this House between hon. Members on these benches and on the benches opposite, although we appreciate one another's points. We ought not to overlook the great value of the Press as an adult educational factor internationally, and we have also to remember that newspaper men have to live, just as other individuals, and therefore they give the public what the public are asking for and yet try to guide them to the big vision of life. We have secured the elimination of improper reports of divorce cases in the Press, and we are trying to wipe out legally obscenity also in our newspapers. If we remember the public service which journalists have rendered to the country and Empire, if we support them and help them—for they desire it—I believe that in the future, as in the past, they will carry on their useful mission as one of the greatest factors in the world.

Mr. J. JONES: It is very interesting to some of us who are not journalists, but simply readers of newspapers, to note that everyone in the House seems to be agreed that it is necessary to have a clean Press. A clean Press means a clean mind, particularly on the part of those who control the Press. It used to be said at one time that the Press was the organ of public opinion. It has now become the barrel organ of millionaires' opinions. The source of public knowledge is to a large extent being controlled by a small handful of people. Some hon. Members have been talking of the daily Press. Let us remember the weekly Press, which has become a poison gas factory so far as the great mass of the people are concerned. The "Daily Herald" has been mentioned this evening. I hope it will be a good
advertisement for it. We publish our paper every day, but we cannot make a profit on it, although we are supposed to be part and parcel of the general journalistic system. We are not able to buy readers by offering them fancy advantages in the way of new stunts and gambling.
The other day we were discussing the Betting Bill, and arguing about the morality and immorality of gambling. As a matter of fact there is not a newspaper outside the "Daily Herald" that does not live on gambling, and more particularly the daily Press. So far as the "Daily Herald" is concerned its circulation has not been built up by gambling and stunts. Such a policy is not honest journalism. I am not a spoil-sport or a kill-joy, but I do say that it is bad for journalism when a newspaper cannot live upon the honest expression of public opinion. There aro some newspapers which do give an honest expression of opinion regardless of what other people may think. We must all appreciate the fact that newspapers, like joint stock companies, are run for profit, and they have to be run for profit or they would soon be turned down.
Lord Rothermere is not in business for the goad of his health, neither is Lord Beaverbrook. Lord Beaverbrook is there for what he can get out of it. He thinks he can run the Government, and he believes he is cleverer than all the Members of the Government, and I believe it. I believe Lord Beaverbrook could give the Prime Minister a good start and beat him if he had not to go before the electors; so long as he sits in the editor's chair the whole country is at his disposal, and even Napoleon was either a non-starter or an also ran. When the Government find themselves in trouble they go to Lord Beaverbrook and Lord Rothermere to help them. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] The Red Letter came through that channel, and the red herring for the next election will come from the same source.
Of course, if this source fails, the Government can depend upon the "Daily Mail." As far as the Labour party are concerned, newspapers cannot run us. We run the newspaper and the newspaper does not run the Labour party. The Press to-day is simply a combination of capital which gives expression to
the opinions of coalowners, mineowners, railway directors, and the big financial interests of this country. The Press is simply their mouthpiece and their master's voice. That is what is the matter with this Motion. You can never clear the Press of capitalistic control. The Press is the mouthpiece of those interests, but now the workmen are beginning to think for themselves. They may buy your papers, but they do not swallow your politics. Labour can get 5,000,000 votes, almost as many as you can get, and we have only one paper, with a circulation of a quarter of a million. You have millions of circulation, daily and weekly, and cannot poll many more votes than we do. Hon. Members opposite know that 135 of them did not vote the other night on the extension of the franchise. Why? They are afraid. They are afraid to express their opinion. They did not believe in "Votes for Flappers," so they said, but, when they were challenged, only a dozen of them turned up—the 12 apostles of reaction, showing how powerful their Press is. That big organ, the "Daily Mail," and other papers, claimed that the Tory party should go into the Lobby against that particular Measure, and they did not turn up, showing the great influence of the "Daily Mail." It has turned out to be the "Evening Wail." So far as we are concerned, it leaves us absolutely cold.
The Press to-day is part and parcel of the manufacturing system, owned by the people who own the factories and workshops, and the workers have found it out; they do not believe in it, To-day it is not merely a matter of ordinary journalism; every department of public life, social, religious or political, has an inspired daily, weekly or monthly. If you are a Roman Catholic, Lord Rother-mere can provide you with a Roman Catholic newspaper; if you are an Orangeman, he can provide you with an Orange newspaper; if you are a Bush Baptist, he can provide you with an organ to preach Bush Baptism. It does not matter what your social, religious or political views are, you will have them from Lord Rothermere, all provided at so much a week, and "Comic Cuts" into the bargain, with "Tit-Bits" as a kind of entrée. [An HON. MEMBER: "What
about "Answers?"] "Answers" does not matter; you get your answer when you buy your "Tit-Bits." We say that the Press has become a trustified syndicate of other people's opinions, doled out to the working classes to keep them just where they are.
This Motion is simply an expression of our opinion. The newspapers of this country do not represent the opinion of the people. There are a few for which I have a great respect. I sometimes read the "Times"—by accident; I read the "Manchester Guardian" by design, and the "Daily Herald" by choice. When I get away from those three papers, I think I have got away from real journalism down to the gutter. The others do not touch me a bit. My brain may not be great enough to include the leading articles of the "Daily Mail" or the "Daily Express," because the people who write those articles are writing to order—not their opinions, but what they are told to write. "On your knees, dog!" So far as we are concerned, we want a free Press. I hope the day will never come when a Labour Government in power will tolerate a machine Press, a Press which is to express the opinions of its owners. We want a free Press, with the right of every section of the community to express its opinion freely and fearlessly.
According to the opinions expressed to-night by every section of the House, it is a bad thing for journalism, which used to be looked upon as a great expression of public opinion, that it should become trustified and syndicated as it is to-day. Therefore, I hope that this Motion will be carried. That will give notice to these great gentlemen who think, not merely that they can organise public opinion, but that they can control it, and will tell them that the game is up, that the workers of this country, and the people of this country generally, are not going to have their opinions stereotyped. Their views are not going to be given from barrel organs, but are going to be expressions of public opinion in reality, and we will freely express our views in this House and tell those people to mind their own business, as we are able to look after ours

Mr. PONSONBY: The House owes a debt of gratitude to the hon. Member
who introduced this Motion, and the unanimity shown in all parts of the House in supporting it is something that will be noted even by the Press themselves. I hesitated in getting up, because I hoped someone on the Government Bench would have said a word to show that the Government themselves realise that this is a great question which ought to command public attention and the attention of the House. I suppose this is the first time this House has taken this growing menace to the freedom of the Press into account, and it would have been a fitting occasion for the Government to say something which would have shown us that they were aware of this danger. I think we must admit that we are living in an age in which vulgarity, regulated by commercialism, more or less holds the public field, and when we find the newspapers gradually getting controlled by fewer and fewer people we at once see the menace to the freedom of the Press. If this movement continues we shall be worse off than the Press in Italy and Russia, because after all in Italy and Russia the Press is owned by the State, and everyone knows exactly where he is. In this country, we are by way of having freedom, and at the same time just a few individuals are playing on their various newspapers, giving the public the impression that a great many different views are being expressed from all over the country by different agencies, whereas one individual or a very small number of individuals are talking all the time. This domination of a group must operate against public opinion having the chance it ought to have of learning the state of affairs of the country.
I agree with the hon. Member for the English Universities (Sir M. Conway) who said we ought not to overestimate the influence of the Press. My choice of newspapers is something on the lines of my hon. Friend who spoke last. Occasionally, when I feel, politically, dull I read papers like the "Daily Mail" and the "Daily Express," because they want to make me agitate in exactly the opposite sense to that in which they write. In fact I think the newspapers are finding that., so far from influencing the country, they are producing a spirit of opposition in the readers to whom they appeal, and that can be shown in the way in which the party to which I belong is growing year by year and month by month in the
teeth of the opposition of this huge syndicated Press. I do not want to introduce a party note after such a Debate as this, but when hon. Members talk of the criticism they receive from some parts of the Press, after all we know that is only just on the surface and just for the moment, and that in the long run they have got the whole mass of this Press behind them, and we have got it against us. It is one of the most valuable weapons they have got in their armoury and it is used by them on every conceivable occasion in order to prevent us either from coming into power again or from remaining there should we get a majority of the votes on our side. This Press, with all its apparent differences, with all its allurements and the admirable way in which a great part of it is made up, with its articles on art, on literature, on science and on the drama, has underneath and underlying it a great and ever-growing political determination that the Labour party shall not be allowed to remain in power if it ever reaches power.
Though only tackling this question tonight superficially, though only making a statement with regard to this syndicated Press being against the public interest, we are really embarking on a great crusade against an agency which is going to operate, as time goes on, more and more powerfully against free opinion, against progress, and against the establishment of the new social order which we as a party desire to establish. A good deal has been said to-night about the vulgarity of the Press and about the low tone that it adopts. I am very much afraid that this Motion, which is going to be passed, I am glad to say, without a Division, will be laughed at to-morrow morning by the very gentlemen who have the power in their hands at present. They will realise that the House of Commons is for the time being powerless, that legislation cannot be brought about, that the Government are silent and that they can go on in their own way encouraged by the thought that their power cannot be touched. But I believe that we as a party, in raising this question, have started public discussion, and public discussion all over the country is likely to ensue from this Debate, and after a time, it may be after a year or two, or after a few years, we shall find this House forced to deal with an evil which, if it is not tackled, is likely, as the Motion says, to
be detrimental to the best interests of this country.

Captain BOURNE: The hon. Member for Brightside (Mr. Ponsonby) is, I believe, a fairly recent convert to the party of which he is now an ornament, and, like all converts, he is very fervent. He seems to be under the impression that the syndicated Press, as it is called in this Motion, is inherently bound to be hostile to the party to which he belongs, and, therefore, as a matter of course, is friendly to the present Government. I am not a student of the syndicated Press, but on such occasions as I take up and peruse the various organs for which, I believe, it is responsible, I cannot find any great favour shown towards the present Government. Though it seems to me to be somewhat hostile to the present Government, its one idea appears to be to play off each political party in turn against the other. I fail to find the sinister manoeuvring which the hon. Member seems to discover in favour of the Conservative party as against other parties. On the whole, I think the House owes a debt of gratitude to the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) for bringing forward this question. I am more inclined to agree with my hon. Friend the Member for the English Universities (Sir M. Conway) that as it increases its extravagancies the Press has less and less influence on public opinion. I cannot think that the wild articles we see about certain topics can really impress the public mind in favour of the Press which publishes them. I cannot help thinking that the vast majority of people, although perhaps they may be slightly amused at those articles and may read them with a certain amount of pure curiosity, must, at the bottom of their minds, regard those articles as nonsense, and, consequently, they lose respect for the organs that publish them. I do not think that the extravagant football competitions, to which more than one hon. Member has referred to-night, really tend to raise the value of the Press in public estimation, or tend to make its opinion as expressed in leading articles more carefully studied by the public, or more likely to be followed when they want the public to make up their minds on any questions of public policy.
The thing which I think is, or may be, a danger is not what the Press says but what it does not say: the habit of putting a certain amount of information, quite accurate information, into its columns and very often omitting a large section of the context of that information which if published in full would completely alter the impression caused on the mind of the reader. I do not know whether hon. Members opposite are very careful students of the Press and whether they would take the trouble to read the accounts of the Debates in this House as recorded in most organs of the Press. If you take the "Times," you get a pretty full account and a pretty accurate account of the speeches made in this House. They are necessarily condensed owing to lack of space, but very often even in the "Times" the condensation of a, speech may very materially alter the impression formed on the mind of the reader from that which the hon. Member who has made the speech makes on those who hear the speech in this House. When one turns to the other newspapers and reads an account of the Parliamentary Debates one often finds that it is compressed into a very short space, and the general atmosphere and view of this House is so completely distorted that no human being reading the account. could possibly realise what the House had done, what hon. Members had said, and what was the prevailing opinion in the House. That sort of information may be profitable or otherwise from the point of view of the proprietors, but it is hardly likely to help in forming a really sound public opinion.
The hon. Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Snell) said that it was the duty of the Press to be impartial. I think he was, perhaps, patting the case rather too high, because in human society where people have divergent views and where men tend to see opposite sides of questions, and to see those opposite sides perhaps from a partisan view, it follows that as a matter of necessity the different organs in the Press will stress one point of view rather than another. I do not think that, taken as a whole, that attitude does any harm. What you do want is that the Press shall report its facts impartially and accurately, and then it is perfectly entitled to draw such deductions from the facts and put them in front of its readers as they may think
good. It is also very desirable that there should be many shades of opinion in the Press itself. You do not want ten or a dozen newspapers expressing the view of one owner or one group of owners. It means repetition. You get a repetition in the evening paper of precisely the sentiment you have seen in the morning issue, and they go on repeatedly harping on some topic which seems to be good policy to the noble lord or to a group of gentlemen who control these papers.
On the principle that continual dripping will wear away the hardest stone, some little impression must be made on the minds of the readers of these journals by the reiteraticn of certain themes and certain themes only. Where you have groups of papers, both local and London morning newspapers, and evening newspapers controlled by the same people, you are bound to get an almost monotonous reiteration of certain themes which, if it does not convince the readers of the papers, must drive them nearly into the lunatic asylum or force them to take refuge in the sporting columns of the paper for their intellectual enjoyment. That is the worst side of this tendency to syndicalism. I prefer the paper mentioned by the hon. Member for Silver town (Mr. J. Jones). I often read the "Manchester Guardian," and I also find a general amount of interest in a paper which I think is partly controlled by the hon. Member on the front Opposition bench, the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury). However much I disagree with the opinions expressed in this newspaper which puts forward a definite point of view and expresses the opinions of the people who control it, it is not part of a vast scheme for influencing public opinion on such particular subjects, the object of which we cannot understand. We owe a debt of gratitude to the hon. Member who introduced this subject. A discussion on private Members' time is perhaps apt to be a little academic. This discussion is somewhat academic, but this is a subject on which an academic discussion is not wasted and it may have some influence if it is reported in the Press. It has not run very strongly in their favour and perhaps it will not be reported, but if it is it may produce some result if it is
known that the vast majority of Mem' hers of this House, no matter to what party they may belong, is of the opinion that a complete control of the Press by one or two interests is not to the advantage of the country.
The only drawback to this discussion is that no hon. Member who has spoken has indicated a remedy. It is not easy to see what remedy there can be. Interference with the Press in any form would be going back on our historical tradition. The freedom of the Press in this country was won for us after a long struggle, and it would be difficult for any Government, of whatever political party, to impose any form of censorship or restriction on the Press without raising the cry that it is proposed to muzzle public opinion. I do not see what action this House can take. We can express our opinion and say it is in the interest of the country that the Press should not be controlled entirely by one or two people, that there should be a full expression of the view of all shades of opinion, and that, in consequence, it is desirable that the organs of the Press should not be controlled by one or two people but that each organ should be under one absolute head, and shall express perhaps one shade of opinion or the other, without being necessarily co-ordinated with other organs which, by repeating the same statement, may hope to influence public opinion. I agree with an hon. Friend who expressed the view that on the whole the Press is not gaining in power, and that perhaps we are rather over-stressing its importance.

Sir ROBERT LYNN: It is with some diffidence that I rise to take part in a discussion of the Press, because I find that those who know least about the Press are those who have made the longest speeches here to-night. Their knowledge of the subject is in inverse ratio to the way in which they have dealt with it. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Bright side (Mr. Ponsonby), who spoke from the Front Opposition Bench a moment or two ago, pointed out that probably the Press would laugh at this Debate in the morning. I should be surprised if any newspaper were so foolish as to laugh at this Debate, because there was nothing even amusing in it, not even the speech of the hon. Member for Silver-town (Mr. J. Jones). Of all the Debates
I have listened to in this House for wellnigh 30 years, I have never listened to one more futile than this. We have had one superior person after another getting up to tell us that the Press has got down not only into the gutter, but underneath the gutter altogether. If the Press is so futile and so harmless and so useless, why waste a night of this House in discussing it?
If hon. Members think that the function of the Press can be better discharged by themselves than by those who control the newspapers, by all means let them do it, for there is nothing in the world to prevent anyone who wishes to do so from starting a newspaper. Why do not these hon. Gentlemen who know so much better than we journalists how to run journals—why do they not do so? Certainly I stand, not for syndicated newspapers, but for independent newspapers that give free expression to the mind of the editor and at the same time are not afraid to give a fair publicity to political opponents. In my judgment, the position of a newspaper ought to be that of giving a fair summary of the views of every political party, and then for the editor to comment as he thinks right, and for the public to take whatever advice, or none of the advice that may be offered. Taking the newspapers in Great Britain as a whole, we can claim for them that they do give a fair summary of the views of different political parties, and of public men, not only in this House but outside it. I think the main charge against newspapers to-night proceeds from vanity; you find vanity even in the House of Commons. We find Members complaining that their speeches were not properly understood. If any newspaper, even the "Daily Herald," with all its virtues, tried to publish verbatim the speeches of members of the Socialist party only, I should say that it would die within a very few weeks.
There was a time when the public did like to read long Parliamentary reports, but, believe me, to-day the general public wants only summarised reports, and those very brief, of the majority of the Debates that take place in this House. Do right hon. and hon. Gentlemen suggest that newspapers should spend their time and their space in publishing speeches that no one but the speaker wants to read? That is really what it
brings itself down to. I think that this Debate will do no harm, but it will certainly do no good, and will not raise the prestige of this House as against the Press. For generations there has been a more or less friendly rivalry between this House and the Press. There was a time when anyone publishing speeches made in this House would have been sent to the Clock Tower, but now you permit the Press to publish your speeches, and I think, on the whole, it must be claimed that this House is treated fairly well in the general class of newspapers
I listened very carefully for someone to produce a new scheme. They are complaining of syndicated newspapers. As I have said, I have no sympathy with syndicated newspapers, and I do not even know the distinguished journalist who has been referred to so often to-night. But what remedy have hon. Members got for the new situation which has developed? Surely everyone knows that every one of these things carries with it its own remedy. If you get a syndicated Press which outrages public opinion, you will find that public opinion will insist on getting a Press that fairly represents its views. If the syndicated newspapers are giving views which the general public does not want, surely the general public is strong enough to find means of producing newspapers that will represent their views? Look back over a century into the past when the power of the Press was terribly handicapped by one difficulty and another! Yet in spite of all those difficulties, a free independent Press rules in Britain, and I do not believe that that spirit which led to the establishment of the free and independent Press is going to be stifled by one or two wealthy people. You will always find independent newspapers all over the country expressing the views of the community and this House is rather losing, shall I say, its influence by indulging in puerile Debates like that we have had to-night. It can do nothing. It has no power. Suppose thé Press of this country, instead of being syndicated or being controlled by private individuals, was handed over to the leaders of the different parties in this House, what sort of a newspaper would you have? I should like to see a newspaper produced by the Members of the Socialist party. Then we on this side would see, much more clearly than we do already, the
differences which exist. The same applies with regard to our Friends below the Gangway. They have all their differences and have their newspapers which give colour to their opinions as a whole. You cannot possibly change that sort of thing. I think the best thing this House can do for its own sake would be to pass from the subject and forget what has been a particularly foolish Debate.

Resolved,
That, in the opinion of this House, the maintenance of independent organs for the dissemination of news is vital to the preservation of the standard of public life in the country, and that the consolidation of the Newspaper Press in the hands of powerful syndicates, and some of the devices employed by these syndicates to extend the circulation of the newspapers under their control, are contrary to the public interest.

Orders of the Day — DISTRESS IN MINING AREAS.

Mr. GEORGE HALL: I beg to move,
That this House views with grave concern the conditions prevailing on the coalfields in South Wales and other parts of the country where, in consequence of widespread distress arising from the long-continued depression in the coal industry, large numbers of people, including children and young persons are lacking in the elementary needs of life, such as boots and clothing, whilst the standards of local government, public health, and education are rapidly deteriorating by reason of the serious diminution in the resources of the local authorities and their growing financial impoverishment, and this House calls upon the Government to take immediate action to relieve the necessities of the people and to enable the local authorities in these areas to carry out their statutory duties.
I am not unmindful of the fact that only last week a good deal of consideration was given to this matter and I formally move the Motion.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: I beg to second the Motion. It is the bounden duty of those of us who live among the mining population to raise this matter on every possible occasion in the House of Commons. Something must be done in this matter and while we are thankful for the efforts which are being made to relieve, to some extent, the present depressed conditions, we urge that the miner is of such importance to the community that the Government ought to take action.

Mr. SPEAKER: I think this is practically the same Motion as that which we had on a recent occasion.

Mr. HALL: Yes, Sir, it is.

Captain O'CONNOR: I regret very much that at this late hour we should be called upon to discuss a Motion of this gravity. The Motion deals with a subject which has been before the House of Commons on more than one occasion recently—if my memory serves me aright—in terms almost identical with those which appear on the Paper. May I remind the House of what the terms on the Paper are.
To call attention to the distress in mining areas; and to move, that this House views with grave concern the conditions prevailing on the coalfields in South Wales and other parts of the country where, in consequence of widespread distress arising from the long-continued depression in the coal industry, large numbers of people, including children and young are lacking in the elementary needs of life, such as boots and clothing, whilst the standards of local government, public health, and education are rapidly deteriorating by reason of the serious diminution in the resources of the local authorities and their growing financial impoverishment, and this House calls upon the Government to take immediate action to relieve the necessities of the people and to enable the local authorities in these areas to carry out their statutory duties.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the hon. Member please read it again? I did not guile get what he was saying.

Mr. O'CONNOR: I must apologise to the House if I was a little husky. The hon. Member proposes to call attention to the distress in the mining areas and to move:
That this House views with grave concern the conditions prevailing on the coalfields in South Wales and other parts of the country where in consequence of widespread distress"—

Mr. R. RICHARDSON rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent and declined then to put that Question.

Captain O'CONNOR: —
arising from the long-continued depression in the coal industry large numbers of people, including children and young persons, are lacking in the elementary needs of life, such as boots and clothing, whilst the standards of local government, public health and education are rapidly deteriorating
by reason of the serious diminution in the resources of the local authorities and their growing financial impoverishment

Mr. G. HALL rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

Captain O'CONNOR: —
and this House calls upon the Government to take immediate action to relieve the necessities of the people and to enable the local authorities in these areas to carry out their statutory duties.

Mr. BROAD: On a point of Order. May I call attention to the fact that the hon. Member is repeating himself.

Captain O'CONNOR rose

It being Eleven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

Orders of the Day — PUBLIC PETITIONS.

Ordered,
That Mr. Lee be added to the Select Committee on Public Petitions."—[Sir George Hennessy.]

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (MONEY).

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — AFFORESTATION, SCOTLAND.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Sir G. Hennessy.]

Mr. MACPHERSON: I hesitate to detain the House even for a few moments at this hour, but I feel constrained to do so in a matter which affects not only my constituency and Scotland generally, but, I think, the whole country. Yesterday I put a question to my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Sir L. Forestier-Walker)dealing with a situation that has arisen in one of the most beautiful and fertile parts of the Highlands. In 1919, when there was a great cry in the country that men, particularly ex-service men, should be settled upon the land, in the Morvich district of Kintail nine small landowners were settled. As my hon. Friend himself described them, they were registered as smallholders; that is to say, so far as it is possible to give it them, they had security of tenure so long as they paid a fair rent and tilled their land properly. There has been no complaint of any sort against these men, who are men of a very fine stock, which has been for generations on the land there.
For some reason or other, another Department of the State came in and disturbed their tenancy, or threatened to do so. My hon. Friend replied to me, openly and frankly, that it was not the present intention of the Department of Afforestation to apply to the Land Court for resumption of 1,400 acres of their land, hut my hon. Friend does not appear to realise that the introduction of those two words "at present" strikes a blow at the sacred right of security of tenure. If these men are to be expected to remain and till their land, and produce a fine
stock of sheep, with the threat that at any moment the Department is to come down upon them and drive them off their holdings, he is making a great mistake. The House of Commons time and again has asserted the right of these men to security of tenure, and I am convinced of this—though I am certain these men will not defy the law—that the House of Commons will not tolerate a situation of that kind. They have given their pledged word to these men that they will, so long as they pay rent, have security of tenure. Is this House to understand that the Forestry Commissioners are to have the power at any moment to evict them, if the Department think it necessary to plant trees on their land? My hon. Friend belongs to the Principality, and not to Scotland, but he knows sufficient of Scottish agriculture to know that, in that particular part of Scotland, there are thousands of acres in deer forests as suitable as if not more suitable than these outruns, which the crofters have, for afforestation; and when that fact faces the Forestry Commission, surely they are not futile enough at this stage of public life in this country to attempt to oust these crofters from the outruns and the holdings which the State has guaranteed. This speech of mine will be shortened if my hon. Friend will tell me now if it is really the intention of the Forestry Commission to hold the threat of insecurity of tenure over these men.

Sir LEOLIN FORESTIER-WALKER (Forestry Commissioner): I shall be glad to answer the right hon. Gentleman. I can give him this pledge, that we have not the slightest intention of disturbing the tenants, unless on their own application.

Mr. MACPHERSON: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that statement of the Department's policy. I am now assured, in the presence of the House, that there is no intention on the part of the Commission, during any time of its existence, to disturb the tenancy of the men unless they themselves wish that their tenure should be disturbed. I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I think I can express the gratitude of the Members for Scotland because the Forestry Commission take that wise and sane view. There is only one other point, which was raised by my hon. Friend the
Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean), in regard to the Lubencorn sheer farm. I believe that there were sheep there on the land which has now been taken over by the Forestry Commission, and that there was a guarantee, either by the Forestry Commission or somebody else, that the holder should be entitled to graze his sheep on that park. I understand that these sheep have been driven off, and I would like to be assured by my hon. Friend that the Forestry Commission will do whatever is possible to settle that question also. I am entitled to assume that, seeing that he took such a sensible view of the other question, he will take an equally sensible view on this, which may be a smaller question, but is part of the whole.

Sir L. FORESTIER-WALKER: That point is a rather more complicated one, and really one with which the Forestry Commission have little or nothing to do. The quarrel really is between the owner of these sheep and the original owner of the land. The Forestry Commission obtained the land from the owner free of all encumbrances or tenancies, and, therefore, if there is any error or misunderstanding, it is really a question between the tenant and the original owner. I think I can go as far as this, and say that if, by any means, the Forestry Commission can give the gentlemen to whom the right hon. Gentleman refers a bit of grazing land at rent, we will do our best to try and settle it. As far as the quarrel between the two is concerned, I think it must be clearly understood that we must not in any way interfere in something which has nothing to do with us at all.

Mr. MACLEAN: As one who, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson), was not quite satisfied with the reply given yesterday to the questions and supplementary questions, I should like to say that the reply we have just received is eminently satisfactory, and I am certain that the smallholders and the crofters in the constituency of my right hon. Friend, when they read the statement in their own papers, will he quite satisfied and will feel a little bit more secure in their minds as to their future upon their own native land. There is one point on which I should like the hon. Member to give me some information. I am afraid that
the reply he made yesterday to a supplementary question I put has led him into a false position, and it is only fair to him, as well as to the Department he represents, to give him an opportunity of making the matter clear. Otherwise, there is the possibility of what he has said to-night being considered in other parts of Scotland as not applying to them; because the reply to which I am referring was made in general terms and was not a reply on a specific point or a definite place. In my supplementary question I asked the hon. Member:
Are you not turning off sheep farmers in order to afforest land which is at present being used for the purpose of sheep grazing?
To that the hon. Member replied:
Some of the land may be used and turned off for grazing, but we"—
I take it he means the Forestry Commission—
rather believe that growing trees is more profitable than growing sheep." [OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd April, 1928; col. 1768, Vol. 215.]
I am certain the hon. Member really was saying something on the spur of the moment which he would not say on reflection, and that such a reply would not have been given by him had the question appeared on the Paper. In that case a more considered reply would have been given, and certainly there would not have been any such sweeping language as he used yesterday. Therefore, I think it only fair that the hon. Member, who has been so decent to-night, should be given an opportunity of making his position clear in order that the people who are grazing sheep on land adjacent to these places which are being taken over by the Forestry Commission may know what their position is. If this reply goes broadcast into those places they will have the fear hovering over their minds that while security of tenure has been granted to people in one part of Scotland it will not embrace them as well. While the afforestation of land is going on around them, these people will have the fear in their minds that one day the Forestry Commission will give them notice to quit and take the sheep land away in order to plant trees there.
It is only right that the hon. Gentleman should have an opportunity to make a statement of a more definite character,
giving a more considered reply, and stating in some more definite terms the actual policy of the Forestry Commission with regard to the planting of trees or the grazing of sheep. I think I am voicing the opinion of Scottish Members, no matter in what part of the House they sit, in saying that where land is capable of grazing sheep they would rather see sheep reared there and shepherds tending them and sheep farmers earning what they can by the rearing of sheep, than see the sheep turned off and the land given over to the Forestry Commission for planting trees. There is plenty of land lying bare all over Scotland which formerly was covered with huge forests. That land is now standing bare with nothing but the ground there, and it is not sufficiently fertile to grow any large number of sheep. That land could very well be taken, and land capable of grazing sheep could be left alone. In order to relieve the sheep grazers and farmers in this part of Scotland and to satisfy Scottish Members who want more people settled on the land of Scotland rather than see them emigrate to Australia and to other parts of the world, I think we should colonise our own land before adopting that policy.
The central and northern parts of Scotland seem to be looked upon as a great pleasure ground for wealthy Americans, Englishmen and Indians, who come and stay there for about six weeks or two months. While Scotland is a beautiful place, and we are proud to show its beauties to these people, we are prouder still to live in our own land, and we do not want people to be taken off the land which they are able to cultivate. I hope the hon. Member for Monmouth (Sir L. Forestier-Walker) will tell us that the policy of clearance is not going to be carried out in a new form, but that security of tenure will be given to these people in the future.

Sir L. FORESTIER-WALKER: The hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) seems to have misunderstood the answer that I gave the other day. I was not looking at the matter from the purely Scottish point of view but from the national point of view. I still consider that timber is more valuable than sheep, because for one man employed on a sheep farm we could employ 10 men in the production of timber, and that would also
save in many instances nine men from going abroad and would keep 10 men in this country instead of sending them to our Colonies. We have 60 centres in Scotland, a large number of which have been acquired for settlement for the provision of small holdings. We have not disturbed one single living soul in any one of these centres, and to suggest that we are turning anybody off the land is quite wrong. On the contrary I think we have been great benefactors and I am not quite sure that the House has given the Forestry Commissioners the credit which is due to them. We have afforded much employment. We have settled 115 smallholders and we have 50 more being established. Really we have rehabilitated the countryside in Scotland.
There has been a good deal of discussion of deer forests, but in actual fact we have acquired 12, of an area of over 88,000 acres; and we have acquired seven more, partly grazed, the area of which is 53,000 acres. I hope, therefore, that it will not be thought that we are turning out the men who graze on the mountain and are not dealing with the sporting gentlemen who have, as the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) said, the pleasure of occupying the land for a few weeks. We really are public benefactors, although this is probably the first time that any member of the Forestry Commission has had the courage to say so.
I readily repeat that we have not the slightest intention of turning off people. When there is any grazing, we leave that
till the very last. Some day, of course, we shall have to disturb somebody. You cannot ask the Forestry Commission to build up a great forest throughout the country without disturbing somebody. Of course, it is quite natural that everyone should want us to plant on everyone else's land except their own. Some people do not want us because of the shooting, others because of the grazing, and others because they want to farm. Looking at it from a national point of view—and I need hardly point out that the position is so serious that we must look at it from that point of view—we shall have to attack all sorts of interests if we are going to carry out the programme on which, I presume, the Government will decide this month. When I use the word "attack," I do not mean that we desire actually to attack anyone, but we shall have to try to obtain land somewhere, and shall have to tread on the toes of some people, who will have to stand the racket of that if we are to make this great forestry scheme a success. We know that in front of us is a great danger of timber scarcity, and, unless we are prepared, we shall find that we shall have to pay for it in the end. When it is realised that we intend to tread as little as possible on people's toes, I feel sure we shall have the sympathy of the House.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-three Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.